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

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] [RFC]: KDE GroupWare solution
From:       Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-06-16 0:07:03
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 15 June 2002 21:05, Mirko Boehm wrote:
> On Friday 14 June 2002 10:06, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> >
> > What is the benefit of having a calendar server over the
> > peer-to-peer approach? I hear that quite often that KOrganizer
> > should put its data on a server, but this has some drawbacks, e.g.
> > slower access, possible unavailability and all kind of
> > authorisation and security concerns. It would be interesting to
> > hear some hard facts, why a server approach is better than the iTIP
> > approach.
>
> We have had the discussion about a server or not again and again. All
> arguments have been heard. My 2 cents:
>
> Both approaches may have their advantages, but each and every decent
> group ware system out there in the real world is server based. And
> Outlook without an Exchange server is nothing more but a toy, and
> nobody uses it for group scheduling.

I don't think that this is really true when it comes to calendaring. The 
most common way to schedule meetings, make appointments, announce 
events and similar things is to use plain communication, personal, by 
phone or by email, without much help by the computer. Even if there is 
something like a groupware solution available most scheduling is 
probably done by talking to people at the coffee machine and quickly 
write down dates on the backside of a used piece of paper.

What I like about iTIP is that it is something like the logical 
extension of this "natural" way to schedule things. It doesn't impose a 
new workflow it just makes email communication more effective regarding 
appointments and integrates the calendar app as the most convenient 
tool to view and edit date related information.

> All the other software developers do not stick to server based
> solutions without a reason (and I suppose it is not only about
> selling the server). This is why I do not understand that there are
> such reservations against a server solution.

My only real reservation against a server solution is that there doesn't 
exist an open-source calendar server.

> I am very much in favor of a server, and I am sure that sticking to
> the peer-to-peer approach is one of the things that keep us from
> really moving on (especially since very few user-like people
> understand it at all :-)

I don't think that we are "sticking" to the peer-to-peer approach. If 
there is a server available which is accepted and has documented 
interfaces we will add support for it. I will not repeat that writing a 
server is out of the scope of KDE ;-)

Adding support for a calendar server isn't that difficult. I have done 
it myself in a simple way for a proprietary server solution. But the 
benefit isn't very big. My personal opinion is that the role of a 
server for calendaring is overrated, but you can prove me wrong. 
Patches are welcome ;-)

> But until 3.1, we should take care to solve what can be solved until
> then.

That's very true.

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@kde.org>
_______________________________________________
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]