On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 13:14 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution, Ove.  Interestingly, I actually find
> this way of thinking about local sync (that it is a hack to sort of
> extend SyncML to other protocols) unhelpful. As both you and Patrick
> have mentioned that, I realise that this is how it came about, but I
> tend to think it causes additional confusion as it makes non-SyncML
> protocol access look like more of a special case (with its own rules to
> be learnt) than is really the case with the (brilliant) way Patrick has
> implemented it.  Of course, I may be unique in this and others may find
> it very helpful -- just a data point.
> 
> I prefer to think of local sync as purely an optimisation on a sync
> which happens between SyncML entities which happen to be on the same
> system (and which can be completely replaced with a normal SyncML sync
> if they are on different systems).

Is there really a fundamental difference between your view and Ove's?
You both view it as a SyncML client<->server sync. The difference is
that Ove leans more towards considering that a hackish implementation
detail, whereas you see it as a first-class concept that users need to
know and understand.

> In the context of SyncEvolution I think of WebDAV and ActiveSync not as
> sync protocols but primarily as database access protocols, and all the
> database backends in SyncEvolution as being equal.

That's correct. WebDAV really isn't a sync protocol, it just has some
support for concurrent access to item collections without offering any
means for resolving conflicts. ActiveSync could be used as a sync
protocol (by relinquishing control over the local copy of the data to
the server); SyncEvolution doesn't use it like that and instead just
uses it to get changes and reading/writing items.

-- 
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

Reply via email to