You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since ownCloud 8.1 we have the concept of federated sharing for files. You can share a file with any user on any server by sharing it with <user>@<ownCloudServer>. We can even auto-complete this user IDs from the contacts app and from system wide address books synced between ownClouds.
I wonder if this wouldn't be a nice feature for the calendar app? Imagine if I could share a calender with any user at any ownCloud with the same federated cloud ID I also use to share files.
I'm not a CalDAV expert but this is how I think it could work:
A ownCloud specific API would be used to send a shared calendar to a remote ownCloud server
The remote server would basically receive a CalDAV URL and a auth token
The remote server would then integrate the external CalDAV calendar by standard CalDAV techniques.
Opinions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@georgehrke my idea was that for sharing we would use the CalDAV sharing, as suggested by you. But the calendar app would need at lest the possibility to enter such federated cloud ids to the share dialog. Maybe you are right that this is already enough and handing over the federated share id to core would already be enough to create a share by CalDAV. But I think at least some logic is needed in the calendar app.
Since ownCloud 8.1 we have the concept of federated sharing for files. You can share a file with any user on any server by sharing it with
<user>@<ownCloudServer>
. We can even auto-complete this user IDs from the contacts app and from system wide address books synced between ownClouds.I wonder if this wouldn't be a nice feature for the calendar app? Imagine if I could share a calender with any user at any ownCloud with the same federated cloud ID I also use to share files.
I'm not a CalDAV expert but this is how I think it could work:
Opinions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: