On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:16:08PM -0500, Ludovic Marcotte wrote: > I would still very much like to open a discussion about this - ie., > Funambol (SyncML) backend vs. Z-Push (ActiveSync) backend.
I'm struggeling with seeing why one would push Funambol/SyncML. It requires 3. party agent on all phones (except nokia), and then one could just as well use a 3. party caldav/carddav client. While activesync is supported on all (?) phones, with single config for mail/contacts/calendar. That's what we want! > > What I mostly fear about Z-Push is that we'll revisit all the device > synchronization bugs we had over the past few years with > Funambol/SyncML and we'll have to hack around like we did. This is > very valuable time and know-how here. Getting the Z-Push connector > up and running can be done in a snap, but refining it will take some > time. Also, having the Sword of Damocles on top of my head regarding > the licensing agreement doesn't make me a happy, happy, joy man. Is z-push that much different of a threat than the Open^H^H^H^Hchange- replacement you seem to be doing in v2.0 ? -jf -- [email protected] https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
