Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:44:46PM -0400, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
3) Store DAV resources in a separate hierarchy like the DELETED
hierarchy. I think Ken and I initially liked this idea, but the
more we talk about it, the more it seems like this is the hardest to
implement and we can't remember why we thought it was a good idea.
Also, I think Bron suggested that he'd like to move away from having
the DELETED hierarchy at some point. I'm pretty sure we were at a
bar when we discussed this, which may explain why my memory is so
foggy on the details.
I actually like this best - put it in a separate namespace at the
top level, like:
addressbook.brong
addressbook.brong.Work
calendar.brong
calendar.brong.Work
This could also be hooked in with "altnamespace" more sensibly,
and even advertised as separate namespaces or suppressed to IMAP
clients completely.
Where would shared mailboxes reside? I don't know if there is a viable
use case for shared mailboxes, or if any clients support them, but I
don't want our design choices to prevent us from implementing them.
--
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
