Re: [NTLK] State of the NewtSync

> Here's what I've learned so far as far as NewtSync 0.3.3 is
> concerned...
> 3. I found a couple of typos (transposed letters) where it looks
> for your preference for conflict resolution. I haven't confirmed this,
> but it seems like it would cause the behavior to always be "Newton
> overwrites Mac" for the Address Book and iCal plugins, regardless
> of preference setting.
Oh yes, this definitely needs to be fixed.
> I guess before I take this too much further, I'm curious:
>
> 1. How many people are actively using NewtSync?

Not actively using it, but definitely would be.

> 2. How many people would use NewtSync, but can't because of some
> type of problem?

Would use, but can't because of the Address Book and iCal problems.

> 3. What plugins are you using / would you use?

Any and all :)

> 4. What would be your preferred connection method for NewtSync?
> (serial, TCP/IP, etc)

I personally would use serial since I can't do anything else on my 120. Serial should be
included since that's the
most basic form that's already on the Newton. All of the other methods are useful to others
as well.

> It's one thing to make a few bug fixes for myself, but another to
> take on responsibility for the whole project. Again, I can't
> commit to any particular time investment, but I do have some interest in
> at least getting it to work for me over a serial connection, and would
> be willing to share those updates with NTLKers.

Any and all bug fixes would be most appreciated by the entire community. :)

> Another option would be to merge bits of it into NewTen, so it
> would become both a package installer and basic syncing. If I did that,
> I would probably jettison the plugin-based architecture, and merge
> the plugins into the app, as I feel the plugins add a lot of complexity
> without much actual benefit. (How many people in the world are
> qualified to / interested in developing NewtSync plugins?) Also, I
> may have to support serial connections only, at first, if I took
> that route. It would still be dependent on having the NewtSync package
> installed on the Newton side.

The interest in doing NewtSync Plugins is there for myself. If the plugin system is removed,
then fixes to
individual components becomes a bit more of a pain. If the plugin system creates more
problems then
benefits, then feel free to remove it. Merging pieces of NewTen into NewtSync would be a
great move since
they do complement each other.

The only disappointing part of NewtSync as a whole is the package on the Newton. It just
feels very inelegant
compared to everything else. One thing nice about DCL is that it does use the "Connect"
system built right into
the Newton.

I'm sure what ever you decide will be greatly appreciated by the community as a whole.

-- 
This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries
Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/