On 29.06.2012, at 15:58, Robin Appelman <[email protected]> wrote:

> I dont think extending ocs will be a good idea for the specific api's, ocs 
> made sense for the private data key value store because that is a very 
> generic api. using ocs for things like versioning or rss mostly adds 
> unnecesairy overhead imo. and while attica might bring an advantage for kde, 
> implementing the new modules into attica isn't significant less work as 
> writing a simple implementation for the api with a decent toolkit. 

Well you don´t have to use attica. The API is very simple to use without or 
with a different library. But it´s good to have the option IMHO.

> 
> for non-kde attica only brings an aditional dependecy and is unlikely to be 
> addopted by i.e. gnome, while wide adaption should be one of the main 
> concerns with the api. it would be a real shame if akregator would be the 
> only rss reader to support oc syncing and we dont want to end up being only a 
> cloud sollution for the kde desktop. 

Well you can always access it without attica. It´s just REST. But if you want 
to convinience you can use attica. And there are already other implementations 
for glib or python
http://opendesktop.org/content/show.php/PyContent?content=108958
http://opendesktop.org/content/show.php/libopengdesktop?content=107669



> 
> where no existing standards exists (rss, versiong) we should try to work 
> together with the developers of as many different potentials clients as 
> possible instead of trying to extend ocs. 

Sure. We can and should still do that :-)



> -- 
> 
> - Robin Appelman 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, 13:45:00 CEST, Frank Karlitschek <[email protected]> 
> wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > On 28.06.2012, at 03:43, Michael Gapczynski <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:56:38 PM Frank Karlitschek wrote: 
> > > > On 26.06.2012, at 22:17, Tom Needham <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > > On 26 Jun 2012, at 21:15, Bart Visscher wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:17:37PM +0100, Tom Needham wrote: 
> > > > > > > Yes I'd say api.php would be most logical and least confusing. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What is confusing about remote.php/api 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What I meant to say is that a separate api would be most logical 
> > > > > and least confusing, instead of trying to extend the OCS api. Yes 
> > > > > this could easily be remote.php/api.> 
> > > > > > Bart 
> > > > 
> > > > I´m biased here of course. ;-) 
> > > > 
> > > > But I think we should create a new module for our API as part of the 
> > > > OCS standard. This has some benefits because OCS is already an 
> > > > accepted freedesktop.org standard and implemented by a lot of other 
> > > > software. It is designed in a modular way so that we can easily 
> > > > create a new "cloud" module for our stuff but we still benefit from 
> > > > the existing concepts like provider abstraction, authentication and 
> > > > others. 
> > > > 
> > > > ownCloud is already an OCS client and an OCS server so it would be a 
> > > > logical step to follow this concept. 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Frank 
> > > 
> > > I'm just worried that in this case someone will see the API is part of 
> > > OCS and  then get confused when they start looking through the OCS 
> > > spec instead. It is  designed for social networks correct? 
> > 
> > Well, it can provide lot´s of different things. ownCloud is using it for 
> > accessing and downloading of Apps and Knowledge Base entries for 
> > example. ownCloud is also an OCS server for the key value storage and 
> > implements the activities module to push events to the clients. 
> > 
> > OCS is build in a modular way. Not everybody has to provide every 
> > module. We would skip the social networking part obviously but implement 
> > a "cloud" module and the other things we want to do. 
> > 
> > 
> > > I'm also a little confused about what a 
> > > provider is and why you have multiple providers on one server. 
> > 
> > The idea is that a client can tak to several servers at the same time. 
> > So if your syncing client has several ownCloud configured for example. 
> > 
> > 
> > > What can the software that already implements OCS do if ownCloud 
> > > extends OCS.  Can we tie into the Social Desktop to find other 
> > > ownCloud users (inter  ownCloud sharing) or display news (the sync 
> > > client performed a sync, a shared  file was updated)? I might be 
> > > wrong, but I believe that Social Desktop does  stuff with People and 
> > > Activity. If we can do this without changes to the  existing software 
> > > that implements OCS, then it sounds like it might be worth  it. 
> > 
> > It can and should be completely independent. That´s where the modules 
> > concept in OCS comes in. Every OCS provider only implements the modules 
> > that make sense. 
> > 
> > Another benefit is with using OCS is that we already have a full working 
> > ocs REST interface in ocs.php We only have to add the mdule and the new 
> > calls that we want to support. All the rest including authentification 
> > is already done. So this should be very easy. 
> > 
> > Another benefit is that OCS is already a freedesktop.org standard so it 
> > would be more professional for us to just use and extend it instead of 
> > inventing something completely new. 
> > 
> > And one more benefit is that there is already a Qt implementation of the 
> > API called attica. We only have to add our new call and the integration 
> > into our sync client and KDE will be very easy. 
> > 
> > 
> > > If we go with extending OCS, I still believe that there should be an 
> > > entry  point outside of ocs/v1/ just to make developers aware that 
> > > this isn't the  full implementation of OCS. 
> > 
> > This is also handled by the the providers concept. In providers.php is 
> > defined which modules/servies are implemented on this server. Currently 
> > only "activities". In the future we can extend this with our new "cloud" 
> > module. 
> > 
> > 
> > Frank 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Owncloud mailing list 
> > [email protected] 
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Owncloud mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud

Reply via email to