[caldeveloper-l] sync-tokens vs PROPFIND

[Tim Hare]

I'm not (yet) a developer at that level, but seems to me there might be 
an advantage to all calendar software developers if CalConnect published 
an open-source set of 'functional' examples of how to do things "How to 
retrieve the user's events", "How to send a meeting invitation", etc.   
It might help drive adoption of 'best practices' methods and make it 
easier on server vendors for sure.  Or is this what the API group is 
hoping to accomplish?  In an event, for client developers, it's usually 
the UX that differentiates products, the user rarely sees or thinks 
about the 'back end'  (exactly as in e-mail).

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

On 11/7/2017 12:00 PM, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
> My guess is that if the client is blindly requesting the ETag of every 
> resource using a PROPFIND rather than a sync-collection REPORT, that 
> the client will have no clue what a sync-token is if you return it
>
> I'd push back on the client developer and educate them that 
> sync-collection is almost mandatory to implement for any well-behaved 
> CalDAV/CardDAV client.
>
> Is the PROPFIND not working because Google can't handle it or the 
> client times out waiting for the response?  If the latter, we at 
> Fastmail recently experienced the same thing with requests that 
> require a huge response to be generated.  We fixed this by updating 
> the Cyrus IMAP server so that responses to PROPFIND and REPORT get 
> "streamed" to client using chunked transfer-encoding.  This keeps the 
> client from timing out.
>
>
> On 11/07/2017 11:38 AM, David Given wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> I have an RFC question I'd appreciate some feedback on...
>>
>> We have a situation where a Calendar client is trying to get the 
>> etags of every event in an enormous calendar in a single query. 
>> Naturally, this isn't working.
>>
>> They're doing this:
>>
>> PROPFIND /caldav/v2/$USERNAME/events
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <A:propfind xmlns:A="DAV:">
>>   <A:prop>
>>     <A:getcontenttype/>
>>     <A:getetag/>
>>   </A:prop>
>> </A:propfind>
>>
>> As you can see, they're not asking for a sync token.
>>
>> RFC6578 section 3.6 provides a mechanism where clients can ask for 
>> paginated responses, where the server returns partial data with a 507 
>> status code, and a new sync token so they can continue the query. It 
>> is a, however, a bit ambiguous as to whether this is supported for 
>> methods other than REPORT. The interwebs suggest it is (but I'd 
>> appreciate a clarification here).
>>
>> My question is. however:
>>
>> Is it permissable to return a sync-token (and expect the client to 
>> honour it) /even if the client's original query didn't ask for it/?
>>
>> I'm hoping the answer is going to be yes, but if it's no --- any 
>> suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> David Given
>> dtrg at google.com <mailto:dtrg at google.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> caldeveloper-l mailing list
>> caldeveloper-l at lists.calconnect.org
>> http://lists.calconnect.org/listinfo.cgi/caldeveloper-l-calconnect.org
> -- 
> Ken Murchison
> Cyrus Development Team
> FastMail Pty Ltd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caldeveloper-l mailing list
> caldeveloper-l at lists.calconnect.org
> http://lists.calconnect.org/listinfo.cgi/caldeveloper-l-calconnect.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.calconnect.org/pipermail/caldeveloper-l-calconnect.org/attachments/20171107/83ce4143/attachment.html>