On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 12:04 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > > it is indeed a synchronous API :) > > > Syncronous, but it fails the "you know if you've succeeded when the > > > function returns" test. > > > > most of the camel APIs don't fail that test > > > This was in the context of something I was thinking of ("So it sounds as > if Camel could ...."). The feature/change I was contemplating sounds as > if it would be a bad idea because it violates the usual model for camel > calls.
ah, gotcha. yes, I'd agree :) > Probably either a smaller change (keeping the > blocking/syncronous/useful return values in place) or a bigger one > (general asyncronicity) would be a better idea--at least in a perfect > world of infinite coding time.:) In fact, your idea with folder open > preserves the expected features of the camel API. yep :) Jeff _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionfirstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers