On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 20:32 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote:
> On 13/04/14 19:45, Heyns Emiliano wrote:
> > On a different tack, I am slowly starting to figure out what the various
> > command line calls mean in the HOWTOs that are available, and the
> > scripts that I've assembled, but this one still eludes me:
> >
> > syncevolution --configure sync=two-way uri=calendar Exchange@Local calendar
> >
> > From what I can gather, this sets the properties on Xmn entries (because
> > only Xmn have these properties). But Exchange and Local are contexts;
> > the synopsis says this is a 'config', which I take to be a Sync Config
> > (which I've dubbed 'Peer' above), so I could imagine it'd set these
> > properties on an Xmn described by either m = <some peer inside Exchange>
> > or <some peer inside Local> and n = 'calendar' (a source in either
> > Exchange or Local), but I don't understand how SE figures out which peer
> > in which context, and how it figures out which context it should choose
> > source 'calendar' from.
>
> That is my fault, for causing confusion. Although @Exchange is, indeed,
> a context, the name "Exchange" is not being used to mean that in this
> command. "Exchange" is, in this case, also the name I used for the peer
> config within the @Local context. Two different entities (of different
> types) with similar names. And completely unrelated as far as SE is
> concerned (they get linked later by using the local:// url).
>
> But I always think of the peer config as pointing to the peer. So, in
> my mind, I tend to name the peer config in one context with the same
> name as the context name it will eventually link to.
FWIW, I do the same and think it makes sense.
> But I probably
> shouldn't have done that in the example, to avoid confusion.
>
> It might be useful to always include the @ at the front of names of
> contexts, to reduce this confusion. There is nowhere in the command
> line where the context name ("Local") can appear without the @ in front
> -- so you may as well consider the @ part of the name.
Agreed. I think I am doing that when I talk of contexts. If not, the
text should be corrected.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
