[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Alain Magloire
Subject: Re: imap4d PERMANENTFLAGS
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:37:56 -0400 (EDT)

> > For a store format like mbox(which is a flat file) it is probably
> > better to update "en masse", then doing it individually for each message
> > But for others, like MH or MAILDIR, a file per message, there is no gain,
> > so how about this:
> <snip>
> Agreed. The idea is fine. I suppose mailbox_close() should call
> mailbox_update_attribute_all() before closing the mailbox. (btw, I'd
> suggest to name it mailbox_update_attributes). Some operations
> may call message_update_attribute() upon an individual message, for
> example imap4d_store0 after doing STORE +FLAGS.
> Now, each particular mailbox type may support only one of these
> functions, leaving the other one a no-op.
> For Unix maildrops message_update_attribute() can simply raise some
> flag in the mailbox structure. Then, upon close, mailbox_update_attributes()
> checks this flag and if it is set, it will do the actual work,
> otherwise it will just return.
> What do you think?

/* Save the attribute flags.  */
attribute_update ();

/* Save all the messages attributes flags.  */
mailbox_update_attributes ();

'll see, if I can get something going this weekend.

BTW.  I've talk to some doc people here and

mailbox_is_updated ()

is not lexical correct, it's a "Colloquialism".
I have no idea what it means, but they suggested
mailbox_is_modified ();

I'll do the change for that one in the new API only.

Is attribute_update () a "Colloquialism" ?
maybe its better to use _save_,  like
attribute_save ();

Pff, and people complained that french is complex!!!

au revoir, alain
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on n'est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]