Re: Syncing Maemo PIM apps with KDE PIM 4.3/4.4

Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> Ok, thanks for clarifying!
> I don't think I'm doing a good job at that ;-}

We're getting closer. ;)

If I may provide a suggestion for improving SyncEvolution's "About" web 
page (http://syncevolution.org/about):

To me, as someone who has never used yncML before, the implications of 
SyncEvolution not supporting calendar entries if compiled for an Nxxx 
device did not become clear.

Maybe one could rephrase the first paragraph to something like:

*********
SyncEvolution compiled for GNOME's Evolution supports all of these data 
items, allowing to sync this data with another SyncML-capable device. 
Compiled for Nokia 770/800/810 Internet Tablets, the N900 smartphone, 
Mac OS X and the iPhone (SynvEvolution 0.7 only), it supports 
synchronizing the system address book with another SyncML-capable peer. 
Running on the Nokia 770/800/810 or N900, SyncEvolution is used as an 
alternative to the integrated SyncML implementation. SyncEvolution up to 
and including version 0.9 requires its peer to support SyncML server 
mode, while from version 1.0 on, SyncEvolution optionally does support 
server mode by itself.
*********

>> Mh, now you're confusing me again. ;) If I sync Akonadi with the
>> N900, does Evolution also need to be the server on the N900?

> No. SyncEvolution 1.0 beta, running as SyncML server on a Linux
> desktop, can talk via Bluetooth to the SyncML implementation that is
> already in the N900.

Ok. Alternatively, could the standard SyncML implementation shipped with 
the N900 act as a server and SyncEvolution on the PC act as a client, 
eliminating the need for an external server?

BTW:

http://syncevolution.org/documentation states that SyncEvolution does 
not have a server mode and does not sync with a mobile device directly. 

Is this really true, as below you wrote that eg. the N900 supports 
SyncML server mode out-of-the-box, and thus there should not be a need 
for some external SyncML server?

And even if I got this wrong again and strictly speaking it is true, it 
may help to mention that server mode will becontained in the upcoming 
1.0 release and the need for a separate SyncML server will be removed 
once it's released.

>> Setup 1:
>>   ______________                                ____________________
>>  |  PC with KDE |                              | |    N900 with   | |
>>  |     and      | ))) <- Bluetooth Link -> ((( | |     internal   | |
>>  |SyncEvolution |                              | |  SyncML Server | |
>>  ----------------                               --------------------
>> /xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\                              |xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>> ------------------                               ------------------
> 
> You could use the SyncML server inside the N900 like this, but it

Ie. this would already be possible using SyncEvolution 0.9, if it could 
sync with Akonadi? (In other words, as of today it's possible if PC 
would be running Evolution instead of KDE PIM.)

> probably will be safer to use SyncEvolution as server and the N900 as
> client.

Ok, that would be possible with SyncEvolution 1.0 and a matching 
Akonadi-backend for SyncEvolution? (If I understood that correctly, 
that's the scenario mentioned by you above.)

>> Setup 2:
>>   ______________                                ____________________
>>  |  PC with KDE |                              | |      N900      | |
>>  |     and      | )))    <- Some Link ->   ((( | |      with      | |
>>  |SyncEvolution |                              | |  SyncEvolution | |
>>  ----------------                               --------------------
>> /xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\                              |xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>> ------------------                               ------------------
> 
> In this scenario, SyncEvolution on the PC would have to act as SyncML
> server and SyncEvolution on the N900 as client. It would allow you to
> avoid the builtin software on the N900. The link can be HTTP (needs
> syncevo-http-server.py on PC) and Bluetooth (needs obexd with
> SyncEvolution plugin on PC). There's one limitation: the N900 has to
> initiate the connection.

Ok. Would it be preferrable to use SyncEvolution on the N900 instead of 
its built-in SyncML implementation? If so, why?

Greetings,

  Gunter



_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list [email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/