Re: SDshare push

* Lars Heuer
> 
> Aside from a feeling that the proposed solution is ugly, I wonder if
> this solution works for SDShare clients. SDShare does not mandate that
> a "server" must update the feed in a transaction. The server may
> publish a feed which provides not all changes issued by a transaction
> which initiated the fragment update. The solution may work for
> updating a single server, but the synchronization with clients remains
> unclear. A client may gather the updates 1 .. n-1 but ignore
> (intentionally or not) update n.

Either you are talking about normal SDshare, or you have client/server reversed. Actually, now I think about it seems you don't have them reversed consistently. In any case, I found this too confusing to follow. :)

> I still find one request per fragment + APP more elegant. Aside from
> the technical problem, mentioned above, it's maybe just a matter of
> taste and a matter of the interpretation of the purpose of SDShare,
> though.

I think so. I find your argument telling: "more elegant". That does indicate it's a matter of taste, which is fair enough.

--Lars M.
http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/
http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/