On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:40 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:05 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> > Forcing unique sibling folder names on creation will partly solve the
> > dilemma, but what should happen when identically named siblings are
> > found anyway?
> If indeed a protocol(server) allows you to have identically named
> siblings, then the matter of concern would be how we would store it
> locally. The filesystem would obviously not allow us to have identical
> siblings.
No, but we can do almost as good by appending a ' ' to the name of the
first identically named sibling and ' ' the next and so forth. I am
pondering how to do this the best.
I do not think that forcibly changing the name on the remote server will
be any good, so I think that a local mapping agent must be used.
Something like:
Case A - N identically named folders/objects are found on the remote
server:
A map of display names are created whereby the remote names used to
construct a one-to-one "local name" <==> "remote UUID" mapping.
The local names are constructed from the remote names by appending
1..(N-1) ' ' characters to the remote names.
Case B - An Evolution user wants to create an object with a name that is
identical to an existing sibling:
We deny the request.
Case A above can get complicated, but I don't see how we can do
otherwise if we want to cover all use cases.
Thoughts?
jules
_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
