Re: [Opensync-devel] OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful

[Daniel G. <go...@b1...>]

On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:04:39 am Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > In summary, I would like to understand why you feel that redirecting our 
> > efforts to SyncEvolution has any greater chance of success in solving the
> > hard  problems of syncing.
> 
> My own summary, more at a meta level than the details above:
>       * don't reinvent the wheel, use a mature engine (Synthesis)


What was your reason choosing SyncEvolution and not OpenSync to adapt to 
libsynthesis?

We wouldn't have any "fragmentation" if you would have chosen OpenSync, and 
not SyncEvoluation, to adapt it to libsynthesis.

Something I'm very interested and also prepared several changes for, and added 
additional complexity, to introduce libsynthesis in OpenSync. E.g. by making 
OpenSync independent of xmlformat.


I'm still open to adapt OpenSync and it's plugin to make more use of common 
code - e.g. vcard handling of libsynthesis, maybe even seperating libsynthesis 
in sometihng like libvxx to provide a common code base for vformats not only 
for syncing application. I would be also happy if one day someone prepares 
patches which replace OSyncEngine with something based on libsynthesis.

libsynthesis is definitely more mature code regarding vformat handling and the 
engine with regards of syncml. Not quite sure with regards generic 
synchronization.

And i guess OpenSync Plugin API is more mature then SyncEvolution Backend API. 
But would be interesting to hear if there is any flaw inside OpenSync, why it 
wasn't chosen to adapt to libsynthesis.


-- 
Daniel Gollub
Linux Consultant & Developer
Mail: go...@b1...

B1 Systems GmbH
Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de
GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537