[Cosmo-dev] Re: [Scooby-dev] Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment)

[Brian Moseley]

On 7/14/06, Jared Rhine <jared at wordzoo.com> wrote:

> If no product of ours exercises the CalDAV features of Cosmo, we will not
> have a CalDAV test cases.  Even if you wanted to support CalDAV in Cosmo,
> how could you reasonably ask for QA's time to test features that are not in
> Beta?
>
> What CalDAV bugs, enhancements, or test cases can rightfully make a
> prioritization of bugzilla or bug council over any bug/enhancement in our
> own products?

it's a good question. the product team's goal of fully implementing
caldav and atom access may not be perfectly in line with osaf's goals
for beta. i'd like to hear katie's thoughts on this.

one thing that hasn't been addressed is that, as an open source
project, cosmo can benefit from outside contributions, and we can give
commit access to non-osaf staff to work on things that are of interest
but not part of osaf's product plan. this includes caldav.

given that we've implemented probably 80% of the protocol, and the
most useful 80% at that, and that we have demonstrated
interoperability with a number of clients, i feel reasonably sure that
a lot of people will get what they need out of what is already in
cosmo. but the door is wide open for those who need the other 20% to
contribute patches.

> Is it unrealistic to build Scooby completely on top of CalDAV plus CMP plus
> a couple extensions?

it's not unrealistic, but i have argued at length in this thread why i
find it undesirable.

>  We've mostly put aside the argument of performance.
> What sort of features in Scooby need direct API access?  (ie, where is
> CalDAV plus CMP insufficient?)  Are these features hard to put a network
> protocol on top of?

not hard, just unnecessary.