Re: The future of gnome-pim - and Balsa, too?

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

This is rapidly evolving into a flame war... Just one last clarification,
and then I'll stop posting to the thread.

> 
> What's the difference between passing data back and forth between the
> mailer/calendar using "internal data exchange" and the way you want it?
> Do you even *know* how evolution passes this data along? It uses CORBA -
> if that's "internal", I have no idea what "external" would be.
> 
> The "glue" in this case is Bonobo, which as far as I'm aware is not part
> of the application at all, it *is* a part of the desktop as much as it
> can be.
> 
> I think that you're a bit confused as to how Evolution actually works...
No. I think I understand it fairly well, but that's not the issue. I choose
to regard Evolution it as ONE application simply because that's the way it
looks from a user's viewpoint. All my arguments are based on that.

My complaint is really that you have spoilt a lot of great work by wrapping
it up the wrong way, nothing else.

Another reason for staring this thread was of course
<quote>
  it's nice to discuss these
  things, since it makes us think carefully about it.
</quote>

> 
> > 
> > On a slightly different note, one of the reasons for exchanging
> "calendar"
> > information via e-mail may be the lack of a good network-shared
> calendar
> > environment. If you had developed a complete solution here (which is,
> of
> > course, a considerable task), you may just have found that the need for
> > e-mail exchange (of this kind of data) had gone away.
> 
> The reason there isn't a shared calendar currently is because the
> specification has not yet been finished as far as I'm aware (so yes, you
> are correct there). We're also trying to interoperate which I think 99%
> of the people would prefer. Interoperability is a heck of a lot more
> important than having a server, don't you agree?
Obviously, a client-server model is just one way of achieving the goal of
interoperability.
> 
> I doubt that once a shared server is implemented and floating around
> that the need for sending shared calendar data back and forth will come
> to an end. There will always be people that don't have access to a
> shared calendar server.
Quite likely, but this depends on the server implementation, really (i.e.
how easy it is to use/install).

- Toralf