Re: set_pilot_id and MAL conduit

[Vadim Strizhevsky <vadim optonline net>]

Eskil Heyn Olsen writes:
 > On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Vadim Strizhevsky wrote:
 > 
 > > Any particular reason why you didn't add to this to syncrhonize? Cases
 > > 10,5 and 8 ? Or am I missing a bigger picture here? I even think that
 > > should be inside add_to_pilot, NO?
 > 
 > They shouldn't be nessecary, as the local system should keep the ID number
 > in all cases. I cannot see a situation where the local system (even case
 > 5, where the local record has been deleted) can match a remote record that
 > can be modified, without retaining the pilot ID number. And this ID number
 > should be set in the record generated by transmit.

[ buzzing sound of light bulb slowly turning on]

You're absolutely right. I misunderstood a very important point of
these cases that the local record is marked Modified, which can only
happen if it already has an non 0 ID.

-Vadim