[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] pilot-link and coldsync
From:       Dag Nygren <dag () newtech ! fi>
Date:       2002-01-26 22:05:13
[Download RAW message or body]

> On Saturday 26 January 2002 10:08, Dag Nygren wrote:
> >
> > Nice that I triggered some thought process on this :-)
> =

> Well, somebody's got to do it :) =


Yep, glad you do.

> > I don't know why you think that the coldsync stuff wouldn't
> > be meant to build on though.
> =

> A quick look at the colsync pages didn't mention a library or documenta=
tion =

> at all. Maybe I just found the website hard to navigate. All the code s=
amples =

> were in perl, as well, which I found a little discouraging.

The docus are in the  tarball, so you really have to download and
extract to get at them.

> > The library seems more or less to be a development of the old
> > pilot-link stuff.
> > This should make it quite  easy to change to coldsync.
> =

> Quite. However, the (1) retirement of the coldsync author and (2) immin=
ent =

> release, apparently, of pilot-link 0.10.1 may shift the balance back in=
 favor =

> of pilot-link. Which is to say that I'm still open to a change in the =

> underlying library, but I'm doubting a little whether that's really =

> necessary. If the API needs a little tweaking for coldsync, don't hesit=
ate to =

> ask for changes.

Actually I don't care very much which library is underneat, as long
as I can use my m505 in my daily work, synching it to korganizer....

The problem is that the m505 support in pilot-link has been lacking
for half a year now and Ineed the Pilot every day.

And as I like the opensource philosophy of "Don't complain, do something"=

I thougth that I have to do something now.
But as I will not be doing this immediately due to other more profitable
work, I agree that we could wait and see for a little time.
I will take a closer look at it anyway though, just in case there will be=

a pilot m705 or something with more problems...

> > Your comment also made me think a bit more about a change
> > of libraries.
> > At first I thought that I would make a quick IFDEF:d hack of the
> > appropriate parts, but now I started thinking about abstracting
> > a pilotaccess class....
> =

> But KPilotDeviceLink already *is* the abstracted device access class. W=
ell, =

> that and PilotSerialDatabase. There's not much sense in abstracting tha=
t any =

> further.

Perhaps not. I really have had just a glance at the stuff by now, but the=

if dlp_* is used in 4 files instead of one I think there is a need for so=
me
additional abstraction. In my mind the connection to the pilot should
all be handled through one class/file. But I might be too idealistic ;-).=


> > BTW. Have you been following the new stuff in pilot-link ?
> > Is kpilot in sync ? Does it compile with the newest versions ?
> =

> The pilot-link people are trying it out ... I haven't had any news thou=
gh.

Really looking forward to hear about this.

Dag



_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]