Re: [Evolution] Problem viewing calendars on multiple machines

[Chris G <cl isbd net>]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:53:05AM +0100, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
> > > Minor correction: it is not "SyncML the protocol" which limits the kinds
> > > of data that can be exchanged, it is "SyncML server XYZ" or "SyncML
> > > client ABC" which only support certain kinds of data.
> > >
> > > >   Or are you saying
> > > > that the SyncMl "intermediate standard format" is effectively cast in
> > > > stone?
> > >
> > > No, it is not. The implementations choose that, with varying success.
> > Both of the above make it even worse to my mind.  It means that if I
> > have a working system with clients A and B connecting via server S
> > then it's quite possible that clients A and B *wont't* work with a
> > different server T.  In fact, thinking about my experiences so far,
> > that is *exactly* what happens.  Each combination of client A (my
> > Nokia E71), server (eGroupware, myFunambol, a locally installed
> > Funambol and ScheduleWorld) and client B (usually evolution) works
> > slightly differently and has different foibles.
>
> I don't think you understand. SyncML is a document format that can be used
> by applications providing a certain set of features, like contacts, calendar
> data, tasks, notes... However, you should still be allowed to make an
> application that only provides contact info, or an application that only
> handles tasks. Someone might even want to make an application that
> only handles notes! Obviously, the clients and servers choose how they
> want to use the document. The document format, however, is versioned so
> people know what to expect because that's what SyncML plugins, clients
> and servers do.
>
> Your complaint, is that not all applications understand all other applications
> datafiles, and that you cannot connect directly to a data source without
> some mechanism to protect the integrity of the data, etc. That's just how
> stuff works. Probably won't change, and I certainly hope it never will.
>
> You've been complaining for days now; I managed to download, install and
> configure Funambol, SyncEvolution and Genesis to work with all my PIMs
> and all my different mobile phones, from scratch, in less than two hours.
> Are you seeing my point? I didn't rush anything, and I don't have the fastest
> connection in the world. It really isn't difficult.
I'm not *complaining*, I too have SyncEvolution and Genesis working. 
I was just surmising that maybe there are other, possibly better, ways
to achieve the same result (well, a better result actually).  While I
have it all working it's far from perfect and this discussion has
helped my understand *why* it's not perfect.


> I really feel that the internet would be a better society if people complained
> less and fixed more, if people were more interested in learning than they were
> in making claims.

This discussion has taught me a lot, maybe I play devil's advocate too
much but I'm really not simply moaning about things.  I'm trying to
discuss weaknesses and look at ways to improve - possibly by looking
at radically different approaches.  I know only too well the
programmers mind set (I'm often there) you get sort of tunnel vision
and hammer away at the immediate problem without realising that
there's a totally different and much better way to achieve the same end.

In fact all this discussion has set me off on another track, I don't
*actually* use my E71 heavily for calendar and don't very often enter
addresses on it.  So it seems to me that my solution may not be
synchronization at all.  I'll find a desktop application I'm happy
with, possibly one that will synchronise with something on the web by
sharing .ics files and then will update my E71 occasionally from my
desktop.

-- 
Chris Green