On 20.06.2011, at 20:41, Robin Appelman wrote: > On Monday 20 June 2011 22:22:09 kunal wrote: >> Hi all, >> for the last few weeks my mentor (Riccardo) and I had been evaluating >> various server and client SDKs and components that we could use to >> implement synchronization. >> >> Both of us and I am sure all of you'll would concur that we must use >> standards compliant technologies to implement the sync. So we have >> decided to use a SyncML (an OMA standard sync Protocol) compliant server >> and client infrastructure. >> >> The Client component would be developed using the Funambol C++ SDK. >> For the Client to work , we must use a SyncML compliant server. >> We have two options here : >> 1. Mooha SyncML server >> Pros: >> 1. Completely written in PHP >> 2. Uses MySQL as a backend >> Because of the above two points , it would integrate with ownCloud very >> well. >> Cons: >> 1. Provides sync only for Contacts and Calendars. >> 2. Relatively new project, in its early stages, only supports >> calendars, notes, contacts as of now. >> 3. A very small developer community , 3 developers. hence new >> feature requests and bug reports get resolved very slowly. >> 4. While synchronizing with akunambol ( a SyncML client) the server >> behaves erratically. (Gives errors, even when the data has got >> synchronized to the database successfully). >> >> 2. Funambol SyncML server: >> Pros: >> 1. Very Mature, version 10 (currently). >> 2. Very large developer community and a large contributor community. >> 3. Supports a lot of Synchronization types like Contacts, Calendar, >> Files, E-mail etc. >> 4. Has a very mature Client SDK (in C++ and Java). >> >> I would like to point out that Funambol has a lot of mobile clients >> (android , iphone, blackberry) which make the solution very widely >> adoptable and convenient. These are just sync clients and do not clash >> with Bartek's work. >> >> (These clients would work with any syncML compliant server , including >> Mooha. But they are much more tested with Funambol). >> >> Cons: >> 1. The Server is written in Java. So the integration with the >> existing infrastructure would be slightly more time consuming as >> compared to Mooha. >> 2. Tomcat takes up around 40 to 50MB of RAM . Though most VPS >> providers provide much more than this but this leaves slightly lesser >> RAM for other apps of owncloud. >> >> I personally would want to use Funambol for the server but before >> starting anything I would like to take the consent of the community >> members. >> >> Please do share your comments / suggestions. > > While funambol is certainly a better server, I would hate to see a dependency > on java for the hosting. > > In the current state mooha doesn't provide what we need but it's at least a > base to work with.
Yes. The main point of ownCloud is that it runs on any webspace without special requirements like a daemon or root access. So java is not an option at the moment. The server should be pure PHP because this is supported by most hosters and servers. Cheers Frank -- Frank Karlitschek [email protected] _______________________________________________ Owncloud mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud
