[Owncloud] Re: GSoC Sync Client - Server Component

Frank Karlitschek karlitschek at kde.org
Mon Jun 20 22:37:27 CEST 2011

On 20.06.2011, at 20:41, Robin Appelman wrote:

> On Monday 20 June 2011 22:22:09 kunal wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> for the last few weeks my mentor (Riccardo) and I had been evaluating
>> various server and client SDKs and components that we could use to
>> implement synchronization.
>> Both of us and I am sure all of you'll would concur that we must use
>> standards compliant technologies to implement the sync. So we have
>> decided to use a SyncML (an OMA standard sync Protocol) compliant server
>> and client infrastructure.
>> The Client component would be developed using the Funambol C++ SDK.
>> For the Client to work , we must use a SyncML compliant server.
>> We have two options here :
>> 1. Mooha SyncML server
>> 	Pros:
>> 	1. Completely written in PHP
>>        2. Uses MySQL as a backend
>> Because of the above two points , it would integrate with ownCloud very
>> well.
>> 	Cons:
>> 	1. Provides sync only for Contacts and Calendars.
>> 	2. Relatively new project, in its early stages, only supports
>> calendars, notes, contacts as of now.
>> 	3. A very small developer community , 3 developers. hence new
>> feature requests and bug reports get resolved very slowly.
>>    	4. While synchronizing with akunambol ( a SyncML client) the server
>> behaves erratically. (Gives errors, even when the data has got
>> synchronized to the database successfully).
>> 2. Funambol SyncML server:
>>    Pros:
>>    1. Very Mature, version 10 (currently).
>>    2. Very large developer community and a large contributor community.
>>    3. Supports a lot of Synchronization types like Contacts, Calendar,
>> Files, E-mail etc.
>>    4. Has a very mature Client SDK (in C++ and Java).
>> I would like to point out that Funambol has a lot of mobile clients
>> (android , iphone, blackberry) which make the solution very widely
>> adoptable and convenient. These are just sync clients and do not clash
>> with Bartek's work.
>> (These clients would work with any syncML compliant server , including
>> Mooha. But they are much more tested with Funambol).
>>    Cons:
>>    1. The Server is written in Java. So the integration with the
>> existing infrastructure would be slightly more time consuming as
>> compared to Mooha.
>>    2. Tomcat takes up around 40 to 50MB of RAM . Though most VPS
>> providers provide much more than this but this leaves slightly lesser
>> RAM for other apps of owncloud.
>> I personally would want to use Funambol for the server but before
>> starting anything I would like to take the consent of the community
>> members.
>> Please do share your comments / suggestions.
> While funambol is certainly a better server, I would hate to see a dependency 
> on java for the hosting.
> In the current state mooha doesn't provide what we need but it's at least a 
> base to work with.

Yes. The main point of ownCloud is that it runs on any webspace without special requirements like a daemon or root access.

So java is not an option at the moment. The server should be pure PHP because this is supported by most hosters and servers.


Frank Karlitschek
karlitschek at kde.org

More information about the Owncloud mailing list