[OGo-Evolution] OGo - evolution connector uploaded in CVS

[Shreyas Srinivasan]

On 8/17/06, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2006, at 12:50, Robert de Geus wrote:
> > I guess so, we are now testing in our office on 2.6, but it is also in
> > our plan to do an upstream merge a.s.a.p. to the main evolution tree.
>
> Nice! :-)
>
> > It is not in our plan to do this. I think it is a matter of trying to
> > compile it in 2.4, it is not part of our testing scheme.
>
> OK.
>
> >> Hm. You based your work on the Noodle trunk branch? I've tried to
> >> replace all "opengroupware" references with "GroupDAV" in my branch.
> >> While I don't mind OGo publicity, I really think we should make this
> >> a "GroupDAV" connector.
> >>
> > I don't know what you mean, I am not programming, Shreyas is. Are you
> > refering to the naming of objects?
>
> Function names and stuff in the connector itself, plus the labels in
> the UI.
>
> > We are however trying to make an
> > implementation of groupdav for opengroupware. Our users are going
> > to be
> > using both the web interface and evolution, so we want as many
> > features
> > available in evolution as in opengroupware as well as a data
> > consistency
> > between the two client interfaces.
>
> OK, do you plan to extend Evolution UI to access OGo features not
> available in Evo itself?
>
> > So maybe you could explain us where are the differences between
> > opengroupware.org and groupdav... We might be able to take some issues
> > in account.

> > It would be very nice indeed if this implementation is fully
> > groupdav compliant, but I hope you also understand that we need
> > something that works and that our users understand.
>
> OK. The point of GroupDAV (as with any standard ...) is that the
> incident for other people to help with the connector gets raised. If
> its "just" an OGo connector, only OGo people are interested to fix bugs.
>
Agree, we can have some way to discover features in OGo before using
them, so the minimal subset would be Groupdav compatible but people
can add custom server features to the backend. Right now that could
be messy, let me figure out an elegant way of doing it.

> Of course an OGo specific connector can integrate better with OGo
> which is also nice ;-)

Heh, true. I think its important to understand how many servers are
Groupdav compatible and the kind of server specific features which
they offer. I mean if we could integrate some useful features which
are missing in the current Groupdav spec but have most servers
implementing them , then that would rock big time. No idea how
feasible that is though.

> > Because we are only testing against opengroupware we wont find any
> > issues concerning other server implementations.

True, but i would like it to work with most GROUPDAV servers, just helps
adoption as Helge stated.

--
Shreyas