Re: [SM-PLUGINS] CardDAV Addressbook plugin

[Alexey S. <al...@sh...>]

On Sat, May 29, 2021 16:35, tlhackque via squirrelmail-plugins wrote:
> I might try it, but it's not a high priority.

It looks like there are only three of us interested in this plugin, so I
suggest let's take it off-list. I'll contact you and Ted privately. If
someone else want to join - let me know or check this repo:
https://github.com/Lex-2008/abook_carddav - I'll try to keep readme up to
date as long as repo is maintained.



> FWIW, my cardDAV address books (I have more than one) each run
> several hundred addresses, so address completion (full and/or
> partial) is pretty much required for it to be useful. ​Also,
> squirrelmail seems to be used as lightweight MUA, especially
> where bandwidth is limited and/or expensive.  So listing "all"
> and/or generating a lot of client traffic should be avoided.  Better to
send the server a partial name and get back only matches.

Agreed! I assume you mean "autocomplete" plugin? It indeed has two modes
of operation: "Pre-load Contacts" (insert your whole addressbook into
"compose" page) or send a request to server after each typed character.

Although in my case (single hundred addresses) it takes almost same time
to load "compose" page with whole address book (~600ms) as to find a
single matching entry for a typed email address (~500ms). So preloading it
is for me, then :)



> "carddavclient" mentions a local cache - if this is in the
> squirrelmail browser, you need to consider how the end user can
> flush it/ensure it disappears - e.g. when a shared/public PC is used.

No, I believe it's to synchronize CardDAV and squirrelmail servers. I
haven't figured out how it works exactly (carddavclient doesn't have API
to save/load the cache), and it sounds like an idea for a different plugin
- which will just synchronize squirrelmail addressbook with a remote one.

This plugin just proxies requests from squirrelmail ("give me all contacts
whose name starts with A") to CardDAV server.



> There's likely to be a lot of effort required between "works for me"
> and "others can use in production"...

Agreed. And it looks like there are not that many people eager to run it
in production, so guess I won't be putting too much effort in moving it
too far from "works for me" state.

Alexey