Talk:Places:BookmarksComments
From MozillaWiki
URI v.s. GUID, in terms of synchronization
In case of 2 bookmark sources (one is local, the other is remote).
Bookmark Source I Bookmark Source II Merged Source Fruits Fruits Fruits Apple Apple Apple Banana + Grape = Banana *Separator* *Separator* Grape Cherry Orange *Separator* Cherry Orange
- The identifier of directory "Fruits" in I is same as one in II and Merged one?
- The identifier of separator in I is same as that in II and Merged one? How to ensure that? A user may delete the separator and create it again. Then the identifier is still unique?
- How to ensure "Grape" is above the separator, and "Cherry" is beneath that?
- After sorting Merged Source by name, where are "Grape" and "Cherry"?
- We really have to support separator at the back end?
e.g.
Bookmark Source I Bookmark Source II Merged Source Fruits Fruits Fruits SubDir#1 SubDir#1 SubDir#1 Apple Apple Apple Banana + Grape = Banana SubDir#2 SubDir#2 Grape Cherry Orange SubDir#2 Cherry Orange
is equivalent to the first chart. "Fruits" is a named directory, "SubDir#1" is a nameless directory. The nature of separator is opened directories and simply a trick for UI. At least, the latter model simplifies the sorting issues.--Torisugari 04:24, 29 October 2006 (PST)
In response to the comments by Torisugari
- URI vs GUID: I didn't catch any discussion of one versus the other, so not really sure what the arguments are here.
- Re: Local folder "Fruits" vs. remote folder "Fruits" - I think each should have a unique identifier. When first syncing legacy datastores there will be lots of dupes. But after the initial cleaning, all subsequent syncs will be far less error prone than using like-ness heuristics to figure out if folders or bookmarks are "the same".
- Re: Supporting separators - I think that truly syncing "bookmarks" involves supporting the related UI constructs: Folders and separators. I think that supporting separators is not hard, and there is not a substantial downside to doing so. Extensions can always choose to ignore them when syncing or integrating.
- Dietrich 11:57, 6 November 2006 (PST)