[Evolution] Re: GROUPWARE

[Dan Kuykendall <dan kuykendall org>]

Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> I don't think it would make sense to try to morph an existing end-to-end
> system like phpGroupWare into an open groupware standard (OGS) project
> itself.

I am not saying that phpGW will be "the" OGS project. Im saying that I
will write an OGS interfce to phpGW. The OGS will only be a documented
interface to a backend. phpGW will probably be the first backend to
provide an OGS interface.

It can be used as a testbed and I am confident that I can turn around
the code in short time.

> phpGW seems like a product designed to get the job done.  An OGS would
> have to be designed from the ground up to be flexible enough for any
> number of client developers to use.  The important element of such a
> project is that it's open and reusable, client-friendly, comprehensive
> while being flexible, and based upon standards.

phpGW is really two seperate parts. The phpgwAPI and the phpgwAPPS. The
phpgwAPI is what all phpgwAPPS are written for. The API only handles the
basic needs session management, auth, accounts mgmnt, ACL security and
has functions to allow apps to share their objects with other apps,
handles installation and upgrades etc etc...

The phpgwAPPs are all the applications such as email, calendar, todo,
file repository, project management, time tracking , etc etc...
Now a few apps such as email, calendar, todo, notes and file repository
are considered "core apps" and are maintained by the core development
group. These core apps would also have OGS interfaces to them as would
be nessesary.

Seek3r