On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > Hi Fred! > > On 08/29/2007 02:25 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > > On Monday 27 August 2007, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > >> I wonder if this is necessary at all? Maybe it is a better solution to > >> implement the caching completly transparent to the current > >> implementation, by just adding the __set_state() method to ezcMailPart > >> and simply serialize the objects to be cached. This way, the complete > >> email is cached and can be re-used. > >> The mail parts don't need to know if they are cachable. If you just want > >> to change the plain-text part, the overhead of restoring this is not as > >> large as it would make sense to disable its caching. > >> > >> What still needs to be done is, that message ID and stuff must be reset, > >> which should be up to the user on de-serialization. This way, caching > >> can be used more flexible, like building a mail step-wise over muliple > >> requests, if someone wants something like this. > >> > >> We can then offer a backend in the Cache component, which can handle > >> objects that implement __set_state(), which we should do anyway, I > >> think. > >> > >> I'm I misleaded? > > > > Maybe.. or maybe not :D. Can you explain to me how your solution fixes > > the case in the original doc, that is... explain exactly what your > > solution will do. > > > > original case: > >> - Write some multipart mail with attachments. All the mail are the same > >> except for the text part where you substitute the "Dear mr. XXX" with > >> the correct name from the database. > > Enabling __set_state() in the ezcMailPart class will allow that you can > serialize a complete email-structure to PHP source code using > var_export( $mail, true );, as we already do it elsewhere. This way, a > user can cache (meaning store on the hard disc) a complete email > structure and can re-store it almost in no-time. If you cache the > complete structure, it is easy to just replace an ezcMailTextPart in the > object tree, adjust some stuff (like message ID) and you are done. > > I think this is what the issue desires, isn't it? Hm.. no not at all actually. Since in the case you already _have_ the structure. No need to get it again. The problem lies in generating the actual MIME data. You don't want to do that all over again each time.
Cheers, Frederik -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
