On 06.07.2012 14:07, Thomas Müller wrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, dem 06.07.2012 um 13:55 schrieb Bjoern Schiessle:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:50:59 +0200 Klaas Freitag wrote:
- Introduce a server notification to the client if something changes
so that regular checks can go away.
But we need to make sure that no client specific data will be store in the
server like a
queue of changeset for each client.
Yes, no queue. However, I can think of ideas where client specific data
on the server can make sense, such as sync configurations for example.
This will have a bad impact on scalability and the various scenarios will just
over-complicate the server implementation.
Yes, complicate stuff we don't want ;-)
The client need to take care himself about his state and the server can support
him
by e.g. sending aggregated data.
Right, also the client should be free to do a full syncing run whenever
it wants.
This sounds interesting and would enable a application for the sync
client I already thought about for a while.
But I'm curious about your plans for the implementation, especially if
the client is behind a firewall.
Because all communication should be based on http(s) simple proxy support will
be enough to get around the firewall.
In general proxy support has been requested many times - which I started in
April.
I "just" need to implement proxy support for libneon.
That is basically a call to ne_session_proxy( ... ) and a bit of an
extension to the auth callback.
See http://www.theresearchkitchen.com/archives/25 for an example.
regards,
Klaas
_______________________________________________
Owncloud mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud
