Hi, You're making all of my points for me. :)
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 11:10 -0400, D Bera wrote: > Mostly true. However, > * There will be a hure repetition of code in each queryable - > regarding setting up inotify, crawler, etc. Yes, but every queryable has to do this anyway. We used to have a general crawler class. It turned out to not be very useful. You have to do this whether you have a queryable class or a crawler class. > * Dot-folders, tmp files, hidden-files are widely used in these > maildir stores. So, just cant handle every directory and file created > in the same way. Exactly, which is why when we need specialized queryables, we can add them. > * Naming convention is different in different cases - and they store > the mail-folder name in different ways. Ditto. > Conceptually, it looks to me like two separate entity - a minimal, > simple queryable which just checks the presence of a crawler and asks > the specific crawler (which would also be small - just informs the > queryable what to do with a new directory/file) what to do the files > and directories it sees. It would just look a bit cleaner and easily > extensible. The Queryable is the thing which generates the Indexable objects with backend-specific properties on them and adds them to the index. That's work that needs to be done either way, whether it's in the queryable class or a crawler class (I don't think it should even be a separate class...), so it doesn't really save any code and it breaks the existing model we have. Joe _______________________________________________ Dashboard-hackers mailing list Dashboard-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers