On 8/9/07, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but it's still a storage, there's no reason for it not to do
> conflict resolution itself. I thought it did ;-)

It's not a storage at all. It's a stub for the actual storage which
lives in the server. That's a enormous difference. In fact, it would
be better if ClientStorage was renamed to ClientStorageProxy or

> Wouldn't it be beneficial if it *did* do conflict resolution?
> (afterall, if the conflict can be resolved on the client, why go all the
> way to the storage server to do the conflict resolution there?)

"Wouldn't it be nice" is a big difference from "I thought it did" :-)

It would be nice, but I am not sure it can do it. Conflicts are
detected at the storage level, and as that level lives in the ZEO
server, that's where resolution has to take place. Propagating the
conflict back to the client because it *may* do conflict resolution
would be less efficient still, as in most cases there is no conflict
resolution available.

Martijn Pieters
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to