On Fr, 2010-02-05 at 13:28 +0000, Lukas Zeller wrote: [server progress events] > How urgent is it in an overall perspective?
I think we can affort to release SyncEvolution 1.0 in March/April without it, althought it would be good to have. > > [explanation why not aborting the session with the first datastore - > thanks!] > > Ok, now I get it. It's about collecting status from all datastores > before the abort, not continuing sync. Sorry for taking so long to > understand :-) I probably didn't explain it well. > In that light I wonder if it wouln't be easier and cleaner to > introduce a new session-level <initcompletescript> which would run at > the point the initialisation package ends (that is, when the <final/> > for that package is detected), which would have the final say about > continuing the session or not. That script could check session vars > for that decision which could be set from datastore level scripts. On > that level, I'd also add an additional <alertcompletescript> that > would be called after processing the alert and figuring out if a slow > sync is needed. That would be the place to check for the unwanted slow > sync condition and set a session var flag that <initcompletescript> > could catch. > > How does that sound to you? That sounds like a much cleaner solution than the one used right now. My current thinking is that what we have will be sufficient for 1.0 in clients. In server mode we wouldn't have the feature, so time frame is the same as for server progress events. -- 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. _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
