A (currently theoretical) question concerning a book about the Kolab Server

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thursday 17 July 2008 14:37, Richard Bos wrote:
> Op Thursday 17 July 2008 13:08:40 schreef Gunnar Wrobel:
> > > The other thing is that kolab is fully based on a directory (ldap)
> > > and imap storage instead of a database.  But what is the big
> > > advantage of using a directory and imap storage instead of database?

More scalability.
Many Imap servers use specialisted storage that is more easy to backup
and thus actually is a specialist "database" with all advantages
over a general database management system.

> > > With IP everywhere a database is also very reachable from each
> > > location, even from remote locations and databases can be replicated
> > > as well.

Replication with databases is much more difficult, the idea of Kolab
is to avoid lock situations which make database replication very difficult.
Also there is better separations between data stores if a less complicated 
piece of software coverns it.

> > You only look at the administrators point of view here. Of course the
> > server admin can access a database. But what about the user? This is
> > the most crucial point about Kolab for me. Of course Kolab offers a
> > lot more than IMAP based storage of data. But to me this is the core
> > element. And it is not a technical reason why I'm excited about this
> > but a plain social one.
>
> I did not think about this aspect actually, but it is a very nice one
> indeed.

Yes, and it does not come from the IMAP usage, but from the idea of doing
the main groupware work on the client. A good client can have several 
storages, remote and local.

> However, if one is to use kolab in a company environment this fact (user in
> control of data) is of no importance as the user should not move his email
> :)

Even a company world, people have private appointments and might be a member 
of an non-profit association. My vision with Kontact and Kolab is that one 
day you have your personal client which saves your appointments on the three 
Kolab Servers: Company, Home, Association. Only the client has access to all 
three sources of information.
Corporations and large organisations will still like this as a happy employee
with their private life being nice is a much better employee.

> In that case why is the directory / imap storage better than other 
> solutions? Probably because it is scalably.  But isn't the same valid for
> groupware solutions based on a database (I wonder)?  Perhaps Bernard or
> Martin can elaborate on this?

(Martin does not read this list, AFAIK.)
A bit is on the old http://kroupware.kolab.org/faq/faq.html#Kolab%20Server0
Other things I would need to write down in a good way - a bit is in the design 
documents of course, but might be burried somewhere.

Bernhard

-- 
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: www.Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080724/3c198bb9/attachment.sig>