Am 25.01.2012 14:53, schrieb Ludovic Marcotte:
On 19/01/12 10:37, Ludovic Marcotte wrote:
On 19/01/12 10:35, Bartłomiej Kluska wrote:
maybe the question isn't very intelligent but why not implementing
the SyncML functionality directly into SOGo (without Funambol or
even Z-Push).
Is Funambol server giving anything more than the SyncML
functionality to SOGo?
This should also be considered.
Libsynthesis (https://gitorious.org/libsynthesis) could be used to
expedite that development.
One other option here, which I just reminded, would be to use the
Funambol JSON Connector (https://json-connector.forge.funambol.org/).
Using this, we would only need to implement the required JSON API in
SOGo, which should be very simple.
That API could also be used for other apps that want to consume data
from SOGo in JSON. Everybody loves JSON and it's the solution to all
problems!
Yet another (non-standard) interface to implement in Sogo...
Currently I don't see a advantage to introduce one more interface...
Or are there thousands of other applications accessing cal/cardav infos
(in a standard way) via JSON ?
I think better to reuse the existing cal/car-dav stuff on (sogo) serverside
so the sogo core can remain unchanged and improve.
For sync with all other technologies I would use cal-/car-dav
connector/adapter.
And I don't think we should drop SyncML in favor of ActiveSync,
but rather have both solutions, each one has it's own use cases,
many similar, but you just can't always replace one with the other.
André
--
[email protected]
https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
