|
List Info Thread: Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment)
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment) |
|
List Info Thread: Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment)
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
osafoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I think this hits directly at the heart of our
questions about the
>> "eco-system".
>>
>> -Does the eco-system include other clients?
>> -More importantly, can the eco-system, and the osaf
hosted service be
>> successful without other clients and open
interfaces.
>
> i wish i could answer these questions for you, but i
don't know the
> official, osaf-approved answers 
for me
personally, the answers are
> 1) yes and 2) no.
>
>> Sure, we can say at any point "We're not
going to develop this
>> anymore and if someone else wants to we'd be happy
to commit it" but
>> that presumes that we have made the decision that
which ever feature
>> we stop developing ourselves is not necessary to
the success of the
>> hosted service or part of the
"eco-system".
>
> or it presumes that we've developed enough that
success is probable or
> at least possible for a majority of people.
Good point. I think our current implementation of CalDAV,
for now, is
at this point since I can't think of a client that exists
today that
requires features we don't have.
>
>> I think that if we are all in agreement that we do
need these
>> interfaces written and tested for the service to be
successful, then
>> we need to include it in the Beta plan and allocate
resources to it
>> appropriately.
>
> agree.
>
>> I don't mean that if we support calendaring we
should do full caldav
>> and gdata support in the first release. But what
ever we do with the
>> cosmo internal api's, someone should be able to do
via the external
>> API's.
>
> i'd rather take the approach that we implement all
mandatory features
> of caldav +carddav and whichever optional features we
deem useful and
> reasonable, and that we do something similar with gdata
but perhaps
> with a subset of caldav's reporting features.
>
> we should also take a look at the extended, non-caldav
capabilities of
> chandler and scooby and decide if we want to expose any
of them
> through webdav and atom extensions.
>
> finally, any administrative or management operations
supported through
> the cosmo web ui should also be available over the
network in some
> fashion (webdav, atom, cmp, whatever).
This sounds like a great plan. Any chance we can get this
approved as
the "official" plan before the merge