Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

/sync should be paginated to reduce request size (and generally make it more efficient) #788

Closed
turt2live opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

/sync should be paginated to reduce request size (and generally make it more efficient) #788

turt2live opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels
A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol

Comments

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Some sort of pagination (per room or per stream?) would be great for reducing the amount of effort a server has to put in to responding to sync.

Implementation undefined - needs MSC.
@turt2live turt2live added enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API labels Mar 25, 2021
@turt2live turt2live mentioned this issue Mar 25, 2021
Open
@deepbluev7
Copy link
Contributor

matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#2755 may be related to this. (Although there are certainly other ways to do it)

@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

Huh, I thought we had discussed this many times before (and had an issue for it)

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Mar 29, 2021

Not sure we had an issue in the matrix-doc repo for it.

Related: element-hq/element-web#1846, matrix-org/synapse#893

@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Nov 25, 2021

This is happening via https://github.com/matrix-org/sync-v3 and is almost at the point of formalising as an MSC.

@richvdh richvdh transferred this issue from matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals Mar 1, 2022
@KitsuneRal
Copy link
Member

Should this be closed as sliding sync has shaped up by now? Any further discussion on the subject would most likely run off that new base, anyway.

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jan 16, 2023

sounds good to me.

@richvdh richvdh closed this as completed Jan 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@turt2live @ara4n @richvdh @Half-Shot @KitsuneRal @deepbluev7