Am 18.01.2012 21:59, schrieb Jan-Frode Myklebust:
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.
Open standard with no potential licensing problems.
Also not all ActiveSync clients behave well, they all have their own
problems...
(For example the HTC Desire ActiveSync client behaves very bad against
Exchange 2010 servers)
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 ?
OpenChange has nothing to do with ActiveSync.
OpenChange implements MAPI on the server, so (all) mapi compatible can
talk to the server
z-Push implements ActiveSync on the server, so all active sync clients
can talk to the server
MAPI and ActiveSync have on the company behind it in common, nothing more,
technically it's completely different.
The current z-push sogo backend uses CalDav/CardDav to access Sogo
resources,
the Funambol client directly accesses the database
André
--
users@sogo.nu
https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
