Re: [Opensync-users] OpenSync 0.15 released

[Armin B. <arm...@de...>]

Helge Hess wrote:

> On Mar 31, 2005, at 15:11, Armin Bauer wrote:
>
>>> I am still sitting on the fence on GroupDAV, so I am curious to see 
>>> what
>>> others are thing about it. For openSync I think it could help broaden
>>> the appeal of the project and also for groupware projects which
>>> implement the protocol. I can also see the case for everyone just using
>>> syncML ;)
>>
>> How is groupdav related to caldav and webdav?
>
>
> GroupDAV is mostly a subset of CalDAV for vevent/vtodo related 
> operations. It also works with vcards in addition, something which 
> isn't in the scope of CalDAV.
>
> The focus of GroupDAV is to be really, really simple to implement in 
> web based groupware servers. It doesn't even require a full WebDAV 
> implementation, just two predefined PROPFIND queries.
>
> An idea is to have something usable very quickly (GroupDAV) but to 
> have a reasonable base to build full CalDAV support upon.

What advantages does caldav have over groupdav?

Are there any special libraries necessary or can groupdav / caldav be 
used with the normal webdav libraries (like libneon)?

>
>> There already is a plugin in the old multisync that can pull 
>> icalendar files from webdav, sync it and put it back (thats whats 
>> called caldev afaik).
>
>
> I guess this plugin is doing iCal-over-HTTP. The difference to CalDAV 
> and GroupDAV is that those are using URLs to address individual 
> vevent/vtodo entries with all the attached advantages.

right. the plugins just pulls the complete file but not indiviual entries.

>
> Greets,
>   Helge