Re: [discuss] Re: [Evolution] OO - GROUPWARE - Call for concluison-was: OpenOffice: Say it isn't so.

[Dan Kuykendall]

Sander Vesik wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Dan Kuykendall wrote:
> > Can I mention that phpGroupWare (and other such solutions) would also
> > benefit greatly by a joint effort? We are already moving toward doing
> > this all by ourselves, but could benefit from a shared effort.
> >
> 
> Of course anybody who awants to have something benefits if others go out
> and start doing it for them 8-)

I had not said that I am going stand by the sidelines and then benefit
when others get it done. Im getting and and working on the code.

> > Ahhh the ever present dilemma. I think that this can be solved. In fact
> > I am working on solving part of this with the phpGroupWare project (will
> > explain more later).
> >
> 
> Everybody wants to see at least some light at the end of the tunnel before
> running headlong into it.

Again, Im ready to forge ahead and beat down any rocks and boulders that
try and get in my way.

> This is an OpenOffice list (at least where I read it) so it is hapenning,
> at least to some point?

Not really... I only see talk. At least so far... 

> So where does this SOAP thingy leave LDAP? Well, at least Openoffice will
> be covered when the UNO<->SOAP bridge becomes reality...

XML-RPC doesnt exclude LDAP in any way. LDAP is a data repository. So
you just build a module to use LDAP and another to use a sql server.
Leave it up to teh admin to make the choice. This is what I already do
with phpGroupWare.

> Why not work the other way around - starting with an existing
> (modular) http server - say apatche - and then adding the things in? Or do
> you really want to reinvent and write a http server yourselves?

You missed the point completely.
The point is that I am going to try and build a XML-RPC protocol that is
platform and language independant. It is NOT going to be phpGW specific.
Granted phpGW will be the test bed, and as such I doubt some of what we
do in phpGW will not bleed into the standard I put together. But the
intention is to allow anyone else to build a backend in whatever fashion
(perl, zope, C, etc...) and just use our documented design.

> You might find out that lot's of people aren't interested at all to have
> anything to do with MS .NET ...

XML-RPC is what I would use. Now XML-RPC has been getting SOAP support
built into it, since the two are almost identical systems. Now if
developers dont want to use a decent protocol just because it comes from
Redmond, then I would think them foolish and wouldnt need their help
anyways.
 
> But you are probably biased for doing it with SOAP 8-)

I am an XML-RPC fan, and SOAP can be easily supported as well, and this
would open us up to the world that M$ is moving to SOAP/.NET. Why
wouldnt we want to provide a means to take those people from MS$ .NET to
an open source solution?

Dan