[OGo-Developer] Re: additional field for synchronizatin

[Helge Hess]

On 25.08.2007, at 00:15, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> And this discussion even goes out of its initial purpose.

Exactly! I already told you two times that the change is perfectly  
fine from my point of view?! :-)

You made your point clear (a 1s granularity is OK for you) and I made  
mine (I would prefer an exact state comparison). I just outlined my  
idea about it so that you can _consider_ it. Thanks, I thought thats  
why you asked.
And again (for a third), I'm fine with going on with the c_deleted  
thing and a timestamp comparison.

> It was mentionned to add a simple c_deleted flag for one event to  
> be able to be synchronied.

Yes, just do it.

Common, how often do I need to repeat that I'm fine with your  
approach? :-)

Thanks,
   Helge

PS: so far there is only discussion, when will we actually see the  
direct Funambol connector in the SOGo-inverse branch?