please, don't be offended by my questions!
On 07.09.2012 13:13:33, Patrick Ohly wrote:
If you have an idea for making it simpler, then I am all ears. I
have such an idea (at least not without removing functionality) and
no plans to change anything :-/
I'm still learning syncevo, so no perfect understanding.
I guess what could be done is to design another frontend with less
features. Then the implementation can hide details by making choices
the user. The GTK UI is such a simpler frontend.
> This means tens of concept terms! I mean: it's not easy to
> and surely takes noticeable effort to get used to. This is
> wonderful knowing that opensync was already there, which had _much_
> simpler design
And did that design work? How large was the terminology section of
documentation, and was it complete?
What I am aiming at here is that besides "SyncEvolution is too
there's also the explanations that "it is more complex because it has
be" (as you said) and "it has better documentation".
No doubt in that.
I haven't used OpenSync in a long time because there hasn't
stable, supported release for ages. But I strongly suspect that if it
looks simpler today, then it is because it hides the complexity
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.
That's why it's no use talking about OpenSync here.
I just wanted to: formulate the problem (with understanding), ask about
plans and propose a thing to think about, maybe (about OpenSync
One word I used initially is "to refactor". I used it with meaning "to
change something internal without losing functionality".
I'd prefer to get some more experience before continuing this
discussion. Just wanted to ask what you and others think.
Thanks for the answer. Regards,
Ildar Mulyukov, free SW designer/programmer
ALT Linux Sisyphus