[horde] [sync] Latest Findings: Root cause for interop isssue Funambol 6.5 vs Horde 4 found, but how to fix?

[Simon Brereton]

On 10 November 2011 11:18, Christian Bomhardt <horde at bomhardt.de> wrote:
> On 09.11.2011 19:59, Christian Bomhardt wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
>>
>> it is the correct log. I am synchronizing from server to client. I setup
>> funambol to only "sync"/copy from server to phone as I never maintain
>> entries on the mobile (too difficult) and I only sync occasionally. (to be
>> honest: I do not fully trust these syncs - so I prefer having valid data on
>> horde and maybe partially invalid/incomplete data on my phone instead of
>> messing all up for the very very rare use case to adjust anything directly
>> on the mobile...
>>
>> Anything else I can do to help analyzing?
>>
>> By the way - does anybody know where to find valid x-s4j-sif* sync
>> samples? I could maybe hack it into the existing code, but I don't find out
>> how it should look like to work...
>>
>> thanks, Christian
>
> Hi,
>
> pls find below my latest findings why syncing out of the box doesn't work:
>
> Client request somehow calls into ../SyncMl/Sync.php, method
> createSyncOutput
>
> Here, below /* Handle additions */ (in my modified file row 485)
> $c = $backend->retrieveEntry(.,ct$,..) is called
>
> with $ct=Funambol Content types, e.g. text/x-s4j-sife
>
> This ends up in corresponding Application/lib/Api.php =>export method
>
> All my export methods do not return anything for the funambol content types
> but throw an exception
>
> Potential ways to fix as of my impression:
> a)Adjust API export methods to return valid funambol data (e.g.
> text/x-s4j-sife) and everything should be fine
> b)Adjust Sync to call retrieveEntry with content types supported by the
> API->export and then run through the content type conversion as already
> implemented
> c)Different approach I have not yet considered
>
> If I would only fix it for myself, I would probably pick approach A as this
> looks easier for me - but will get broken with next upgrade. Approach B
> looks more like a generic, solid patch.

d) Upgrade the Funambol client as was suggested (and which you will
probably do in the future anyway, no?

Simon