Hi Patrick, On Mar 18, 2010, at 16:22 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:05 +0000, Lukas Zeller wrote: >> >> On Mar 18, 2010, at 14:00 , Patrick Ohly wrote: >> >>> Your patch in the "luz" branch works, thanks a lot. >> >> Thanks for the feedback. After pushing I suddenly had the impression >> it could still be wrong for another case, I have to follow that >> thought first to make sure. So that's why I did not announce the patch >> out loud... > > It has passed all of my tests, so I'll go ahead and use this in the next > SyncEvolution snapshot. If you have more thoughts on what I should test, > please let me know. I followed it through and I came to the conclusion that the case I had in mind is ok. What I was not sure about was what would happen if that response from the server would also contain the final map status, and what if not. But both cases are ok - if it does contain the status, it will be processed despite the pending resume, if it does not (unlikely, but in theory the server could request another message exchange to deliver it) it would be ok because then the maps would be saved "pending" and re-sent at the beginning of the next session (resumed or not). Best Regards, Lukas Zeller (l...@synthesis.ch) - Synthesis AG, SyncML Solutions & Sustainable Software Concepts i...@synthesis.ch, http://www.synthesis.ch _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
