[NTLK] Syncing Calendars

Morgan Aldridge morgant at makkintosshu.com
Thu Aug 15 07:17:57 EDT 2013

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Blake Hanes <kissmyash933 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Noah Leon <moosefuel at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Agreed, adding CalDAV support to IC/VC would definitely be the better
>> >solution in the long run.
>> I wonder if this is a possibility? I understand the need for folders and an
>> updated ICVC. I would of course be willing to donate towards it, and even
>> purchase a licence for Mac OS server (or use a free CalDAV alternative on
>> my linux box) but I have no idea if it is a few hours work, or a few months
>> to put it all together. I unfortunately am not able to do it myself, since
>> I don't have the coding experience or the time.
> I have set up a CalDAV Server before. It's not exactly plug and play, but
> it can be done. It's not a few months work, but it's certainly a couple
> hours. (this may have changed, from what I understand, OS X Server is much
> different than it was at v10.5.) I was never able to get the linux
> alternatives to work, but I do believe that I had it running under 10.5
> Server.

Yup, setting up the CalDAV server itself is not a terribly large job,
but I'd expect modifying IC/VC to support CalDAV would be a few months
work. I've not looked at the CalDAV protocol, but I have managed a
CalDAV server at a fairly low level, it's HTTP based with one iCal/ICS
file per calendar event.

IC/VC imports a single iCal/ICS file (or list of single files) with
multiple events, but I don't recall what sort of duplicate checking it
does. It does support exporting individual or multiple events as
iCal/ICS files. So, it'd have to be modified to not only support
WebDAV (the HTTP-based file protocol for reading/writing the
individual files), but also to detect changes, compare individual
events, and change events. There are also a number of fields that it
doesn't support or deal well with, that might need adding support for
in order to make it compatible.

So, there's a good, solid base to build on, but there's a lot of
complex functionality that'd need to be added. Eckhart can probably
give a better answer as to whether building on top of IC/VC or a new
implementation would be better.


More information about the NewtonTalk mailing list