I'm coming late here, but lucky this discussion is dumb so I didn't miss much.
The "online desktop" should allow it's users to dump stuff into their own personal WebDAV space. This is useful for a million and one things. Tomboy exports to WebDAV already. Tomboy can export to a little corner of an online desktop user's online WebDAV space tomorrow. If you want Web-accessible notes, write a web service in whatever language you want that parses the Tomboy DAV notes. Congrats! End of thread. -Alex On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> * Tomboy remains pretty much unchanged (work to have change > >> notifications > >> from tomboy are underway anyway - its something Sandy already offered to > >> implement for us). > >> > >> * Conduit gains a dataprovider plugin that can sync notes to > >> online.gnome.org through whatever protocol you suggest. This protocol > >> will > >> have to update the Tomboy online data model from the server end. > > > > If I understand this, right now I'm coding an implementation of Tomboy's > > SyncServer and in a Conduit future I would code a Conduit data provider > > plugin. > > > > I think which of those interfaces I write to has very little to do with > > what I'm talking about coding, right? Am I off base here? > > > > The only thing that affects me is whether I code to the SyncServer > > interface in Tomboy now or a comparable Conduit interface. > > > > For now from my perspective the answer is "whichever one Tomboy uses" - > > porting Tomboy to Conduit is a separate project from what I'm doing, I > > would think. > > I think that is correct. Rather than a SyncServer you would implement a > DataProvider for Conduit to be able to talk to your server. And yes, > whether or not we are officially blessed as official sync app for > GNOME... Conduit will support your interface ;) > > My problem is just a general worry that more and more apps will go do the > "roll there own" path when Conduit could help, even in the case of Cheese > which is looking to add Flickr support. > > If Conduit had been inside the GNOME Wall for 2.20 then this discussion > wouldn't be happening, or it wouldn't be me crying "OMG, save Conduit!!". > Perhaps the solution there is to break out the whip and see if Conduit can > move inside the great wall? > > >> I think an important thing here is that some people won't want > >> online.gnome.org. Personally, i might be tempted to use Conduit to sync > >> them to an SSH account or a password protected area of a server I > >> control. > > > > You're comparing apples to oranges. If the desktop has a feature to sync > > my private notes to a private directory, then that's cool and I'm all > > for it. > > Somehow I forgot that Tomboy had SSH sync already. Damn. Forget I said > that... > > > > > I'm not working on that feature, though. What I'm working on primarily > > *is* the server-side Tomboy app. > > > > The only way I am looking at touching Tomboy itself is to have a sync > > plugin that happens to sync to this server-side app, *instead of* a > > private data store. The private ssh server is still a configurable choice. > > > > The two features aren't the same or somehow interchangeable, they are > > two different, mutually exclusive ways to store your Tomboy data with > > different advantages. > > I do get that data store != web app - I think Backpackit.com was among the > first DP's i touhced IIRC. > > So Conduit has a dataprovider. Tomboy has a sync plugin too. That's fair > enough. As I said earlier, we are doomed to this kind of multiplicity-ness > as long as we are outside the wall :-( > > > > >> By integrating Conduit people have that choice, and at the same time we > >> don't waste time on multiple sync implementations. > > > > Whether Tomboy uses Conduit is a separate issue from my project, and > > whether online.gnome.org has a server-side app available, though, right? > > > > I mean, Tomboy already supports choosing your sync plugin. If we move > > the choice of sync plugin to Conduit, that's cool, but hasn't changed > > anything about the code I'd have to write. > > > > I agree with you. But I am keen to see the interface kept simple... > > I guess my problem is that we have OpenSync, we have Conduit, we have > Tomboy. 3 separate syncing engines. My original e-mail was really aimed at > seeing where we fit in. Is there room for 3 ways of syncing on one > desktop? We are already working to make it 2 by working with the opensync > people. Tomboy can't depend our code though :-( > > > The situation in Tomboy today, or with Conduit, is that you can sync it > > to a private DAV/ssh filesystem. And what I'm looking to add is that you > > could also sync it with a web app that knows specifically about Tomboy, > > if you choose to do so. > > The situation in Tomboy today is that you can sync to a DAV/ssh/fuse > filesystem, and that you are going to add support for OGO. > > The situation in Conduit is that you can sync to GnomeVFS, Backpackit.com > (a web app not too far removed from (i imagine) the first few phases of > your project), iPod Notes, Evolution Memos or any instance of Tomboy or > Evolution Memos on another PC on your LAN using the avahi/xmlrpc stuff. > > And we are going to implement the OGO API as well. In a different language :D > > John > > (Gaawd its 1am!) > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
