On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 20:58 +0000, Heyns Emiliano wrote: > >On 13/04/14 19:45, Heyns Emiliano wrote: > syncevolution --sync Source@Peer > > would sync exactly this one pair. Except I have no idea in which > context.
In both. You get two log files (one for each side), two data dumps for each pair of sources (again one for each side), and changes are made on both sides. > If I'm understanding this correctly (and that would be a first), this > means that if I'm setting up a sync for my Google contacts and my Google > Calendar, I'd need separate contexts for those, as I'd need a separate > target-config for each, and each context can have only one of those. You would use the same target-config for both Google Calendar and Google Contacts. Credentials are the same. The start URL for finding collections (aka syncURL in SyncEvolution) are not the same unfortunately, but this is a Google specialty that can be worked around by not using the syncURL in favor of setting each "database" directly. With other WebDAV servers, it is possible to use a single "syncURL=https://server.example.com"; and SyncEvolution will find both CalDAV and CardDAV resources. > What do you mean by saying 'target-config doesn't need anything'? At the > very least I'd expect it would need 'uri' to be set to point to a fully > self-contained data source, or a username/password if the datasource > didn't have one. The "uri" in a local sync is only relevant on the side where the sync is started. Use the actual name of the sources on the target side and their potential aliases (set via the target-config's uri values) don't matter - or more accurately, they are ignored completely. As for the username/password, as you said yourself, that could be in the source. The reason why a target-config is still relevant are the other sync properties which can't be set per source: loglevel, printChanges, dumpData, SSL checking. The target-config is optional because the default values of these properties can be used, but the values must come from somewhere. Taking them from the local side IMHO would drop valuable flexibility, like debugging at different levels (for developers) or enabling backups only on one side (for users). -- 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
