Hi At <http://chandlerproject.org/> the front page promotion
> … Back up with Chandler Hub > makes me uneasy. Consider the architecture <http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/CosmoArchitecture> and for a _single_ collection: * any number of clients * any number of principal users. Any one client or principal user may wreck the collection, to the detriment of other clients/users. iCal 3.0.6 has good backup but interop with Chandler Hub is imperfect. Chandler Desktop 1.0.2 is: the richer client (notes in multiple collections, triage etc.); has a good backup and export story; and in IRC <http://chandlerproject.org/script/getIrcTranscript.cgi?channel=chandler&date=20090109> and elsewhere <https://cia.vc/stats/project/chandler2> we see the dump/reload story improving. Great credit to developers :) I suggest that we (community, chandler-dev + chandler-users) should: a) more actively promote the value of tending towards Chandler Desktop for back up and export b) be more circumspect about describing Chandler Hub as a backup medium. Summary In a single user, single client scenario the Hub may be comparable to a backup. However: as Chandler is explicitly for 'personal and small-group' use, so any/all recommendations concerning backup should: 1. consider group edition of collections and 2. demonstrate an effective restore procedure through which any one editor with the 'truth' can push/propagate that truth to his/her peers. Comments? Arguments? Cheers Graham -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Not-promoting-Chandler-Hub-as-a-backup-medium-tp2185479p2185479.html Sent from the chandler-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
