>> i've spent some time with research on different calendaring >> client/server implementations. I believe that most use proprietary or >> open but very complex protocols (e.g. CalDav) or protocols that are >> restricted to read-only access (e.g. WebCal). >> On the other hand there are some really simple protocols which are >> not dedicated to calendar access (e.g. xmlrpc or json over http). >> So the barrier for a developer of a calendar (i.e. a web calendar) to >> implement a bridge to evoluition is very high. >> > hmm. <shameless rant> I've submitted an open source Apache module > implementation of CalDAV <http://sourceforge.net/projects/modcaldav/>. > I won't argue that it (implementation) is perfect but I'm inclined to > say that CalDAV _is_ pretty simple compared to many other new specs > (i.e. when you don't have to implement the whole http/dav stuff). The > only exception to this may be the iCalendar spec which is probably > even too flexible. Fortunately, there's this, many times forked > libical libary, which we can/should fix. And Evolution is a pretty > decent calendar client as well (although there are some missing > features). So with these constraints, I'll doubt that you could > significantly simplify or improve the situation by creating yet > another new spec ;-) > br, jari Ok, the CalDAV spec is not extremely complex. But it depends on iCal, WebDAV and the CalDAV Spec (which is in fact not a spec but a draft that still might change). The current CalDAV draft (draft 15) was expired on March 17, 2007. The evolution caldav connector is from December 2, 2005 (ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/evolution-caldav). It implements the protocol draft version 5 or 6...
CalDAV draft has 115 pages. WebDAV consists of at least 7 RFCs, the most important are together about 300 pages. ICal rfc has about 150 pages. I know about 2 (free) servers (ok, since your mail, i know 3 :-) ) and maybe 5 clients which supports caldav. Most (all?) of them supports a subset and all implements different draft versions. So in my opinion CalDAV is not a simple protocol. It's a big all-in-one-approach for calendaring with the cost of high implementation expense. It will not be implemented in many calendars until stable caldav-libs (client and server) are available. I'd prefer a proprietary (in sence of non-standardized, but well documented) protocol which is easy to implement in a few hours or days. This gives progammers the opportunity to add client-support to their calendar servers whitout too much effort. regards, Michael. _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
