On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:05 +0600, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
Hello, Patrick, community.
1st of all I wanted to convince you that I appreciate SyncEvolution.
This is a great piece of software, and what's most important: it works.
But now I wanted to raise one question: do you intend to refactor the
design of it?
If you have an idea for making it simpler, then I am all ears. I don't
have such an idea (at least not without removing functionality) and thus
no plans to change anything :-/
I guess what could be done is to design another frontend with less
features. Then the implementation can hide details by making choices for
the user. The GTK UI is such a simpler frontend.
I mean I just read out the
and it is statistically:
This means tens of concept terms! I mean: it's not easy to understand
and surely takes noticeable effort to get used to. This is especially
wonderful knowing that opensync was already there, which had _much_
And did that design work? How large was the terminology section of their
documentation, and was it complete?
What I am aiming at here is that besides "SyncEvolution is too complex"
there's also the explanations that "it is more complex because it has to
be" (as you said) and "it has better documentation".
I haven't used OpenSync in a long time because there hasn't been a
stable, supported release for ages. But I strongly suspect that if it
looks simpler today, then it is because it hides the complexity behind a
simple facade without a fully functional implementation behind it. We
can talk again when an OpenSync release shows that the simpler design
really can be implemented.
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.