Re: [Opensync-users] Comparison between OpenSync and SyncEvolution

[Patrick O. <pat...@gm...>]

On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 13:20 +0100, Bjoern Ricks wrote:
> The general approach of SyncEvolution was and is to solve current
> syncing problems.

I describe the SyncEvolution approach as "from the ground up": start
with something that can be solved, do it well and release, then continue
with the next problem. I started with a SyncML client for EDS. Mac OS X
Address Book was added later. A backend for XMLRPC and the Maemo
calendar API were written by contributors. As of this weekend, there's
also a rudimentary Akonadi backend. For 1.0, we add SyncML server
support. Non-SyncML protocols might come once that works.

I think the way towards non-SyncML protocols like PBAP is to wrap them
in a backend and talk to the central server via SyncML as the
SyncEvolution-internal protocol.

> If I understood Patrick correctly SyncEvolution isn't able to
> sync with different backends at the same time (at the moment).

Correct. That prevents the "wrap other protocols" approach described
above. But this is purely a simplification of the implementation, not a
conceptual problem. We'll add it once it becomes necessary. The same
applies to out-of-process backends.

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
Pat...@gm...
http://www.estamos.de/