Re: [SyncEvolution] [Opensync-devel] OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful
[dropping OpenSync list, as discussed there]
On Di, 2011-01-04 at 17:12 +0100, Michael Bell wrote:
Hi Patrick,
I think an important foot note is the question which goals the projects
have. I am personally (as IT manager of a university) see three general
needs in terms of synchronization:
1. a groupware server (with Active Sync support)
2. a sync solution on mobile devices (for Linux mobiles)
3. a local desktop solution to backup devices
[4. bridge mode: device to desktop to
server]
Agreed.
The first need is not the goal of OpenSync and SyncEvolution. The
third
need is the goal of both solutions. So the question is which priority
have the other needs? Which general design ideas like plugins, engines,
formats or peer-to-peer exist and how does they perform in the different
use cases?
Disclaimer: The following answers just represent my actual limited
knowledge ;)
1.) SyncEvolution explicitly targets the second need.
Not exclusively. Targeting the third case, local desktop sync, was an
explicit goal for SyncEvolution 1.0 in Moblin. There's still a need for
it, and most of the recent work on the stable branch went into that
area.
2.) SyncEvolution can handle the fourth need but I think this was
not
the usage which the developers have in mind.
Agreed. It only works if the mobile device always syncs with the server
via the desktop, which defeats the purpose of a mobile device.
I know that usually such discussions are off list but a mailing list
is
a good archiving and transparent method. I hope you can accept this.
I certainly do, but not everyone was happy about the discussion, so now
I am focusing only on the SyncEvolution part here.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.