Local network syncing...
 

Thank you. Really... thank you. No, seriously... thank you. Brilliant! Thank you. Err... thank you. Thank you. Sincerely... thank you. Too much? okay, I'll desist, except to say... thank you.

I don't have two Macs here to sync. How's performance? Is Bonjour syncing really fast?

To be honest, I was kind of hoping that maybe Bonjour syncing would be available in [I]addition[/I] to MobileMe syncing rather than having to choose one or the other.

If Bonjour syncing is really fast, it'd be nice if OmniFocus could be configured to use it if available. But then, when I'm out with my iPhone and my Mac and Bonjour network aren't around, resort to syncing through MobileMe.

Look forward to hearing any comments...

-Dennis

Measured against .me syncing, it's a step change. I've a home office network comprising a NetGear wireless router connected via ethernet cable to my 24" iMac that is acting as the p2p server. A MacBook Pro, PowerBook and eMac connect wirelessly. OF is installed on the iMac & MacBook Pro under a family license.

Of course, there may be a few bugs to iron out, but so far syncing is performing flawlessly. The weakest link in my system has always been a relatively slow broadband connection, so I'm really noticing the speed advantage of local syncing via Bonjour.

I'm having trouble imagining how this could work. You pretty much need a single "master" copy of the database or the complexities of syncing (already pretty complex) go way, way up.

I've specified my iMac as the database location in Bonjour syncing prefs. The iMac copy of OF has to be running for syncing to take place, so a family license (or indeed separate, single copy licenses) is a must, as at least two copies of OF must be running simultaneously. This is obviously not the case when syncing via MobileMe. I have to agree with Dennis though; an option to employ both syncing methods would be ideal, though I suspect that to do so would likely throw up a slew of issues.

[QUOTE=Andrew;48269]I'm having trouble imagining how this could work. You pretty much need a single "master" copy of the database or the complexities of syncing (already pretty complex) go way, way up.[/QUOTE]

That may very well be the case, I don't know. I hadn't really thought the scenario through. But I'll take your word for it. I don't want to make things unnecessarily complicated.

-Dennis