Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel eds work progress

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo novell com>]

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 09:15 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 11:40 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote: 
> > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ok, and I had to remove groupwise from the camel build.  It was
> > > including a LOT of crap it has no business including.  This needs to
> > > be fixed, using plugins and whatnot, and not hacking things up in
> > > camel to force it to work.
> > 
> > Do you have a list of specifics or a list of restrictions for camel
> > requirements on this?  I think we might have to make it temporarily
> > fugly until the new camel groupwise provider is finished in a couple of
> > weeks (uses soap instead of imap grossness).  I'm guessing the real
> > nastiness is the configuration goo that could now be eplugins?
> 
> Well it uses a huge pile of crap that doesn't belong in camel.  Stuff
> based on gobject, e-account/e-account-list, gconf.  Some stuff from
> evolution's tree, like e-passwords, and e-error (which would require,
> at the very least libedataserverui dependencies which is totally
> unacceptable).

> Worse, stuff from eds/servers/ which must be built after camel anyway.
> 
I wonder if the groupwise provider could just continue in evolution, as
an extension plugin to libcamel.

-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo novell com>