My memory is very rusty and I have not seen Evolution sources in more than 3 
years now. However, we had a similar situation when we working on a GroupWise 
backend and we used a trick to get the number of messages in a folder on 
startup of Evolution (or when the user explicitly presses the getmail button) 
and try to compare the mail counts between summary and server and update if 
they differ (and obviously, after fetching new items in this delta)

I am not sure if Exchange server has such a count API. If so, it can be used 
without breaking the summary code much.

Sankar
http://psankar.blogspot.com 

>>> On 12/3/2011 at 05:35 AM, in message
<1322870713.5191.20.ca...@shinybook.infradead.org>, David Woodhouse
<dw...@infradead.org> wrote: 
> We have at least three mail protocols now which are delta-based. That
> is, you have a bookmark, 'sync key' or timestamp which represents what
> the server *last* told you about a given folder. You say to the server
> "what changed since XXX", and get back a list of added/removed/changed
> messages along with a *new* timestamp YYY.
> 
> It's a very efficient way to handle mailbox access, and it's used by at
> least ActiveSync, EWS and IMAP+QRESYNC. In the Exchange protocols it's
> called 'SyncState' or 'SyncKey', and in IMAP it's the HIGHESTMODSEQ.
> (It's never *actually* a timestamp, since wall-clock time is a PITA. But
> it's easy to *think* of it as as timestamp; the modification time on the
> folder).
> 
> The problem is, we need to handle these updates *atomically*. If we
> store the new timestamp before the changed messages, and we crash in the
> middle of doing so, then we might miss out forever on the messages in
> question. We'd restart, go to the server and say "what happened since
> YYY" and we never get told *again* about the messages which came in
> between time XXX and time YYY, that we didn't manage to fetch.
> 
> And if you do it the other way round and store the changed messages
> first, and crash before you store the new timestamp, you get similar
> issues (cf. bug 664637).
> 
> I'm not sure how to fix it. Looking at EWS first, since that's where we
> noticed it, I pondered removing the camel_folder_summary_save_to_db()
> call from the camel_ews_utils_sync_{created,updated,deleted}_items()
> helper functions, so it happens just *once* at the end of the loop in
> ews_refresh_info_sync() and commits all the changes at once. But just
> deferring the camel_folder_summary bits isn't enough, is it? The
> individual message_infos will have a lifetime of their own, and even
> *internally*, camel_folder_summary_save_to_db() doesn't actually write
> things out atomically using transactions in sqlite... does it?
> 
> Any suggestions or insight would be gratefully received...
> 
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 


_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
evolution-hackers@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to