On 9 Nov 2005, at 22:41, Luke Arno wrote:
On 11/9/05, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005, at 17:07, Luke Arno wrote:
It sounds like you need a workflow.
Create a feed of entries with some flag extension.
Flag all your unprocessed entries. Remove the flag
as you process them so that they will disappear
from the feed. Ordering by updated still poses no
problem that I can see.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceWorkflows
Missing text on the wiki there...
What did I miss?
Oh. Sorry. I failed to read "Remove section 10.2.1".
I acknowledge that back-splicing old entries into a
feed after the fact will cause them to be missed at
sync. Repairing broken feeds and the like would
require the client to either a walk back through the
whole feed (or at least to a specified date) or use
a "repaired entries" feed of some kind.
interesting idea
This was just dashed off of the top of my head. There
are probably other ways to deal with these border
cases.
Well, we should probably wait for the protocol to mature
a little more before we look at how these border cases work out.
But I am happy that nobody has come up and said "impossible".
- Luke
[ snip ]
