On 12 Sep 18:29, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > My main concern is that data synchronization is not really a simple > thing to do, do it right and efficiently. Not to mention that it is > not exactly the same as sharing the same database. For example, > conflicts when writing on the same record database are managed by > comparing the two records just when the user is updating them. That > minimizes the conflict probability.
First, I think it is out of the scope of Tryton to fix how synchronisation must be done. Any way, such design should be done with simplity in mind. For example, there is no need to have multi-write etc. > In fact, the number of conflicts and complexity to manage them > increases when you update asynchronously. For example, sharing > products is not just sharing the product but also the categories which > can have parents and thus the order of sending and updating data is > not so simple. Specially because you can have cyclic references if a > user changed data in the remote system. Category is just an example of > a field that we find in core modules, but if we think Tryton as a > framework we should probably take care of making a reasonably > extensible solution for which we can provide standard solutions to > this kind of problems. That's a good example about what is synchronisable. And for example, I'm sure category should not be synchronised. Because each company should create its own structure. Indeed, synchronisation of products is also questionable. I think on this topic, it is more about on-demand creation or template creation. Very few data about product are sharable and the sharables are static because it is about the description of the product (name, measures, description etc) Indeed the same apply to parties, the sharable information are static. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpNI22OvCtdk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
