[Opensync-devel] OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful

[Georg C. F. Greve]

Hi all,

On Tuesday 04 January 2011 10.04:39 Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Let me add the SyncEvolution list, because the technical information may
> be relevant. For those who see this for the first time, it started with
> an open letter that I sent to the OpenSync list asking whether it really
> still makes sense to continue with two different projects instead of
> focusing on one:

FWIW, there are several other projects dealing with synchronization to mobile 
devices, e.g. Z-Push, which is used by Kolab, Zarafa and Zimbra for 
synchronization with ActiveSync capable devices. 

For Kolab, this means you can already use your native Kolab client, otherwise 
known as KDE Kontact on the notebook and desktop, and have the data 
synchronized via the server to Android, MeeGo, Symbian, iPhone, Windows 
Mobile, or even BlackBerry (with a connector). Many of these devices also 
synchronize with and integrate other data sources, e.g. Google accounts, as 
does KDE Kontact.

But Z-Push is not the only implementation that is being worked on, AFAIK the 
Horde project is also working on another ActiveSync stack. Simultaneously 
there is the Syncphony project for Kolab by tarent. And there is of course 
still Funambol, to which Syncphony also connects. More approaches and projects 
are likely to exist.

So there will be more than one project even after a merge. This is not a major 
issue, I think, but it is part of the whole picture.

This of course does not mean that a merge would not be useful.

But what I would be interested in is the direction of the merged project. 

The appealing part of OpenSync to me was the idea to allow multiple protocols 
and data pathways and that they do not always necessarily involve a server. 
While the former part may be too complex, as Patrick pointed out, and the 
latter may become less important as connectivity gets cheaper, these were 
interesting goals and the reason I experimented with it several years ago and 
kept following this list.

My understanding of SyncEvolution is that it is based on SyncML only.

While incorporating some good ideas, SyncML also has some systematic 
weaknesses. These are at least in part addressed through the device matrix of 
SyncEvolution. But at the same time the vendor support seems to be waning, 
including at Nokia, the previously largest champion of SyncML.

So in your mind, would a merged project continue on the SyncML only path, or 
would there be plans to change the focus of the project to include other 
protocols?

So if you could outline your thoughts on how these things should progress, and 
what is your vision of the future development, I'd appreciate that very much.

Best regards,
Georg


-- 
Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Zürich, Switzerland

e: greve at kolabsys.com
t: +41 78 904 43 33
w: http://kolabsys.com

pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/syncevolution/attachments/20110104/9214af8d/attachment.sig>