Re: [SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution 1.0 alpha 1: SyncML server, syncs with phone

On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 02:44 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote: > Patrick wrote: > >On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 07:03 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote: > >=> http://syncevolution.org/development/sync-phone [...] > > 3. When using a "super" datastore, should the user do > > "syncevolution myphone super" or "syncevolution myphone > >calendar > > todo"? It seems that setting "uri=super" for calendar and todo > > makes the later possible, but doesn't that lead to duplicate > > entries in the SAN? "syncevolution myphone super" might not work > > because "uri" is not set - is that necessary? > It is expected to be used by: > "syncevolution myphone calendar" to sync with one type or > "syncevolution myphone calendar todo" to sync with both. Somehow I doubt that "syncevolution myphone calendar" really does sync only the events in "calendar". What I expect to happen (please correct me if I get this wrong): * we add an entry for "calendar" to the SAN which tells the phone to sync with "text/x-vcalendar" to "super" * phone does that, sending its events and todos * our "super" virtual data source is active, likewise syncing both "calendar" and "todo" under the hood

> This will indeed cause duplicate > source alerts in SAN but not failing the phone at the moment. I can imagine that some phones will get confused by this. > "syncevolution myphone super" is not working. Perhaps we will also support this? I find it pretty natural to activate the "super" data source, considering that this is what is getting synced. We should support it. The semantic that we export to the user then becomes: * when you have a virtual data source configured, then activating any of individual data sources or the virtual data source includes all data in the virtual data source in the sync session * all of these sources must use the same sync mode