Attending

• 18 April 2003
• OSAF: Chao, Katie
• CSG: Tracy, Oren, Paul

Agenda

• Review Calendar Proposal

Notes

• Generally, the proposal looks good, captures requirements
• Add iMIP/iTIP to diagrams
• Haven't yet seen a completely satisfying architecture diagram/proposal
  • Repository: how to handle items and attributes from RAP, CAP, IMAP, LDAP. Inside the code, how to decide which protocol to be using? How to handle schema versioning? What do items and attributes look like?
  • Discovery: how to look up users from different sources
  • Would be ideal to allow folks to kick the tires of apis, see if it will be extensible, well designed.
  • Address namespace issues.
  • Friendly names thread on the dev list a bit out in left field, some concerns. Reassuring to hear that dev list is not primary architectural discussion.
• Tracy asked Paul for examples of good architecture documents, Paul said he'd send some out. Paul mentioned OKI docs, although they were narrower in scope.
• Paul warned that we should nail the architecture before coding, invest the time to get it right.
  • Chao and Katie noted that we're unlikely to have the 100% detailed architecture for CSG meeting, as we're still working on it. Paul's point is well taken, and we want to continue to get critical feedback from CSG folks on architecture issues.
• OSAF will have a document for review one week before the CSG meeting. Chao will try and float a draft by to Tracy, Oren and Paul (and other folks we've been working with) before that goes out.
• CSG folks have two concerns with CT:
  • Pricing and licensing (not true for those with site licenses, but true for some)
  • CSG folks don't want to be locked in to Oracle database, directory server, imap server, entire collaboration suite to get calendar. Starting to look a lot like msft exchange.
• We talked briefly about the chandler-as-client-to-mapi-services strategy, to get interoperability with exchange and ct (with a connector). Not OSAF's priority, not a completely crazy idea though. Some have gotten it to work ok, some have had problems. Only makes sense on windows platforms. On the plus side, you get active sync functionality. Goes without saying, standards based efforts are much preferrable.

-- KatieCappsParlante - 19 Apr 2003

-- PieterHartsook - 25 May 2004