2009/4/14 Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>:
> On Mon Apr 13 18:18:39 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
>>
>> Am I right?
>
> Yes, you are, well spotted.
>
Actually, I'm not. My reasoning would require that the items
themselves are partial, which they are not. So the push includes the
complete last known state of the item, not a change.
That means there is no such problem, as even though the client is not
guaranteed to have a complete state on failure, it will have it when
it resumes receiving from the point it left of.
That also means this part can be somewhat misleading:
4. The interim roster pushes would not include all of the
intermediate steps, only the final
result of all changes applied while the client was in fact offline.
.. as it suggests that the changes (to a single item) combine, while
in fact they replace each other.
