Re: LCUP: convergence?

[mcs@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Mark C Smith)]

Timothy Hahn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Kurt on this.
>
> I believe that the LCUP draft needs to clearly state that "eventual
> convergence" is the goal and show how the protocol can, indeed, be used to
> get there (through appropriate use of synchronize, or synchronizeAndPersist
> operations, for example).  Right now, it is unclear how to use the protocol
> to get "eventual convergence" in a client.

I also agree.  This area needs more text and probably protocol changes 
as well.


> Also to be covered should be a discussion of when it can be assumed by the
> client to be "safe" to use only "persistOnly" and still be sure of gaining
> "eventual convergence".

The answer may be "never" but some people do not like that answer ;-)


> Equally important is a discussion of how clients will know that, with the
> request that was made, "eventual convergence" cannot be ensured by the
> server. (so that a client can re-formulate its held data and LCUP
> request(s).

Agreed.

--
Mark Smith
Netscape Directory Product Development
My words are my own, not my employer's.