Slashdot Mirror
GroupDAV: Standardizing Groupware
IGnatius T Foobar writes "There are lots of open source groupware products out there, but the perpetual problem has always been that we don't have a single, unified standard protocol to connect open source groupware clients to open source groupware servers. GroupDAV changes all that. Support for GroupDAV now exists in Citadel, OpenGroupware.org, KDE Kontact, and connectors are currently in beta for Evolution and Mozilla Sunbird. Unlike CAP and CalDAV, the GroupDAV effort is backed by real code that works today. "
And this lack of a GroupWare standard is EXACTLY why organizations like mine (state government) still turn to MS.
If we could get an opensource standard that worked with exiting MS standards then we would switch, if for nothing else then price alone.
I didn't know what it was either. Apparently it's software that helps manage to efforts of groups of people, allowing them to collaborate on projects. So it's exactly what's needed for a distributed OSS project. Refer to useability first for some details.
You're joking, right? Open source supports the open standards when Exchange uses them.
For instance, you can use active directory as a regular LDAP instance (albiet with funny cn= syntax)
And you can access email boxes as IMAP folders.
In fact, most of the iCal processing is done by outlook and just stored in mail folder (accessible via IMAP). In fact, some people have actually gotten calendaring working with open source software via Exchange.
The only parts that aren't supported are those that aren't open. For instance, the MAPI messaging that exchange can do and those wonky objects in Active Directory that you can't access via the LDAP interface.
http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html Exactly
Agreed.
For me the problem isn't Exchange. It's Oulook. People want to use outlook. They don't give a flying frack what it connects to but they want the useabilty of Outlook.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
The GroupDAV standard is nice and simple, and it ought to be easy enough to implement. However, it's lacking in various useful features. For instance,
Due to this reasons the client SHOULD store alarms locally and SHOULD NOT transmit them to server. The server is MAY reject iCalendar resources containing alarms but MUST signal that using a proper error code.
Woo. I use a GroupDAV server to store my calendar information from my desktop. While I'm on the road, I synchronise my PDA against it. Then I have to go through every event to reset the alarms, since otherwise I don't get any warning about them. Excellent.
Clients SHOULD not post recurring tasks to the server.
I mean, come on.
To allow the client to search for UIDs stored in the server, the server would need to expose the UID as a WebDAV property for use in DASL queries. While this is possible in some implementations (eg OpenGroupware.org ZideStore) it would complicate basic implementations significantly.
Yeah, I can see that making synchronisation fun.
The standard is littered with "This is difficult, so it's not implemented". That's fine - it results in a lightweight specification that's easy to implement, and in many cases it may well be good enough. But it's not appropriate for this to be the standard for open source groupware. It's missing too much functionality. Trying to sell it as a solution for competing with existing groupware solutions is just insane.
In addition to the IETF-style interop checklist we ran over the course of two sessions, we also had demonstrations of things like Sunbird and Outlook sharing a calendar on the basis of a CalDAV adapter for Exchange (written by Oracle). Is this code that's not real? That would make me and others sad, because we spent a fair bit of time writing this code, and it sure seemed real when we ran it and shared calendars!
I'm also interested, as someone who works on Sunbird pretty much every day, to hear more about this "Sunbird connector" that is in beta. I haven't seen it yet, and we're always looking for useful new providers -- where is the beta testing being done? (The discussion of the implementations on the groupdav.org site confused me -- why would you need to have a server as a goal for a client-side connector? Isn't the whole point of a pseudo-standard like GroupDAV that you code to the protocol and not the peer?)
Mike