Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 1, 2021. It is now read-only.

Comparison to groupwise-ics #9

Open
aspiers opened this issue Feb 9, 2015 · 8 comments
Open

Comparison to groupwise-ics #9

aspiers opened this issue Feb 9, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

@aspiers
Copy link

aspiers commented Feb 9, 2015

Any idea how this is different to https://github.com/cbosdo/groupwise-ics?

(Same question in cbosdo/groupwise-ics#2)

@vuntz
Copy link
Owner

vuntz commented Feb 10, 2015

@aspiers both are equally broken in the end ;-)

More seriously: I think @cbosdo's code is connecting directly to imap, while this code is using a local directory that is sync'ed with, say, offlineimap. Other than that, well, I'm not sure, I never really looked at @cbosdo's script.

@aspiers
Copy link
Author

aspiers commented Feb 10, 2015

Hmm, they appear to use SOAP.

@cbosdo
Copy link

cbosdo commented Feb 10, 2015

the SOAP connection is a code piece towards uploading changes to GW since I can't do this using mails. Fetching the events is using IMAP

@aspiers
Copy link
Author

aspiers commented Feb 10, 2015

the SOAP connection is a code piece towards uploading changes to GW since I can't do this using mails

Ahh... so that means that maildir-to-ics will never be able to do bidirectional syncing.

@cbosdo
Copy link

cbosdo commented Feb 10, 2015

Ahh... so that means that maildir-to-ics will never be able to do bidirectional syncing.

Unless your post-office is SOAP-enabled.

@aspiers
Copy link
Author

aspiers commented Feb 10, 2015

Not really, because IIRC the design of maildir-to-ics is only to work with local maildirs, not to interact with servers.

@vuntz
Copy link
Owner

vuntz commented Feb 10, 2015

@aspiers right. It's really a read-only solution.

@aspiers
Copy link
Author

aspiers commented May 23, 2016

OK, so the only thing left to do here is clarify this info in the README.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants