Re: [Planner Dev] Resource feedback

[Kurt Maute <kurt maute us>]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:25 +0200, Alvaro del Castillo wrote:
> El mar, 18-04-2006 a las 23:20 -0400, Kurt Maute escribi�> Take in mind that we need to use libplanner for the web backend and we
> don't have Ruby bindings for libplanner.

Hmmmm....true.

> Python is a friendly web language.
> 
> And also with C# we can use Mono web APIs.

I think I like this option best.  Seems we can either wrap the functions
we need with DllImport or create bindings with the GAPI tools.  Creating
the bindings is something I'll probably want to do after releasing v0.14
anyhow.

> > I think it also might make sense, though, to consider an interface with
> > opengroupware - since it has basic project and task handling
> > capabilities and will interface with a variety of tools:
> > http://opengroupware.org/en/devs/docs/OGoArchitecture.html
> > 
> 
> I have some experience with OGo in the past (evolution connector and
> some other things). Currently we have planner->evolution->oGo
> integration. But in a very basic level. To integrate planner and OGo we
> should use the XML-RPC interface for OGo or maybe, the Zidestore
> interface. But this sounds like a big project. I will prefer something
> more easy to develop.

I was looking at the XML-RPC interface.  Looked pretty cool.

> > Granted, it would not be able to replace the Planner database - its
> > either not targeted at the same type of audience as we are, or is simply
> > not there yet, but there might be the potential there to get task status
> > feedback from Outlook, Evolution, and Web based users fairly quickly.
> > 
> 
> The Evolution integration is already in a good state. We can continue
> working on it if there are interest.

It really depends on what you're looking to accomplish.  There's no
reason why we can't have more than one interface - better if we do in
fact.

-- 
Kurt Maute <kurt maute us>