phpgroupware-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Google Summer of Code


From: Johan Gunnarsson
Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Google Summer of Code
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:10:13 +0200

On 4/16/07, Christian Rost <address@hidden> wrote:
Johan Gunnarsson schrieb:
> Hey
> My name is Johan Gunnarsson (known as johang on Freenode). I'm 20 year
> old CS student in Lund, Sweden. I got accepted in Summer of Code
> yesterday. Just as Dave said, I'm going to write a synchronization
> interface for phpGw, so you'll be able to read and edit phpGw data
> offline using various SyncML enabled devices.
>
> I feel that this is going very fun, and I'm going to do my very best
> to accomplish the task to everyone's delight. Finally I'd like to
> sneak in a thank you to Google, GNU and phpGroupWare for giving me
> this opportunity.
>
> I'll be on this list and Freenode if you need me.
>
> Bye.
>

Hi Johan,

that sounds great, but is a really hard work to do. During the recent history 
of phpGroupWare
there was already an attempt to add syncML capability to phpGroupWare. In 
2003/2004 the German
company Probusiness has coded a Sync Module that is connected to the 
Sync-Server from Funambol
via a XML connector, but unfortunately they never finished the project.

In 2005 we took it over and got it working with phpGroupWare 0.0.16.006 and the 
Funambol
Sync-Server 2.0, and it's in productive use since January 2006. We coded the 
phpGroupWare part,
while a guy from the old Probusiness team updated the connector. At the moment 
we're syncing a
maximum of about 4000 contacts during an initial sync. With the old Sync4J 
Outlook plugin it
takes up to 1.5 hours, depending on the hardware you're running the client on. 
With a PPC plugin
it takes up to 40 minutes. The current 3.x plugins are faster but we can't run 
them with the old
Sync4j-Server.

Well, in general that sounds quite good and it's working, but why didn't we 
make it available to
the world? It's because we are still struggling with the incomplete code of the 
Probusiness guys
and therefore it needs too much maintenance. The most recent bug we found out 
was an
implementation error in the connector - it could not handle multpile sessions 
at the same time.
Therefore while you're syncing data back into phpGroupWare, it could happen 
that e.g. your
appointments belong to another person and this should never, never happen at 
all.

That's why we've been analysing different approaches to create an SyncML 
interface for
phpGroupWare lately. A PHP only solution sounds great and e.g. the eGroupware 
guys have taken
over the SyncML interface from the Horde project and integrated it into 
eGroupware. It seems to
be working somehow, but I don't know any details. Another approach is to stick 
with the Funambol
Server and create a new connector for phpGroupWare.

Because both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks I'll be happy to 
discuss it.

Christian



--
===========================================================
Christian Rost
roCon - Informationstechnologie
Glatzer Weg 4

44534 Lünen

fon: +49 (0) 2306 910 658
fax: +49 (0) 2306 910 664
url: http://www.rocon-it.de








_______________________________________________
phpGroupWare-developers mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers


Hi,

Thanks for your input. My project is supposed to be a native PHP
implementation, but I'm of course open for discussions. I know some
Java so switching to making a connector for Funambol is an option
worth dicussing.

I personally have a feeling a PHP implementation would the best
solution in the end. Running a Funambol a instance, which I guess is
somewhat heavy and requires more of the server and admin. I'm talkning
about running an app server and together with all configuration that
comes with such a beast. You seem to have experience in setting up and
manage a Funambol installation. What are your thoughts about it? I
think running a PHP implementation would be a lot smoother and more
admin-friendly.

I knew Horde had an implementation compliant with SyncML 1.1 but I
didn't know I had been ported to another project. I will have to
investigate into how they did it.

--Johan




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]