[Cosmo-dev] Interesting idea to avoid EIM conflicts

[Morgen Sagen]

On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Randy Letness wrote:

> Brian Moseley wrote:
>>> The server should apply them if the timestamp is newer than the
>>> item's current "last modified" timestamp.  If a client sends a
>>> deletion record, Cosmo just needs to be able to tell other clients
>>> that the record got deleted.
>>
>> sounds like the server wants to respond to a deleted record by  
>> nulling
>> the lastModifedBy attribute and to a non-deleted record by setting  
>> the
>> attribute.
>>
>> will the client ever send both a deleted record and a regular record,
>> or will it always just be one or the other?
>
> Seems like Cosmo could ignore deletion records and just apply the  
> regular records.  Cosmo wouldn't be able to send deletion records,  
> just the most recent record.  Could Chander just implicitly delete  
> older records?

Yes, as I was driving just now I realized that Cosmo can completely  
ignore the deletion records for lastModifiedBy.  However, it  
shouldn't apply an out-of-date lastModifiedBy record -- it should  
ignore it if the timestamp is older than the item's current  
lastModified time.