On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:55:41 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Finneid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TF> As a search folder it does´t need to be updated, because the result is TF> typically only viewed for a couple of minutes. Having change synchronisation TF> between a real folder and a search forlder is unecessary, in my opinion. TF> But if it is used for more than search folder the of course it should be TF> able to synchronise with the real folder. Right, this is why I want to decide if we need it just for the search results or if we really absolutely need the 2nd kind of virtual folders. TF> I would say go for solution 1, but think of solution 2 while doing it TF> because generality is allways good, IMHO. Sure, but the solution 2 is much less obvious. TF> > Maybe, but I still don't see which options should it use. Remember, TF> > options in M means a Profile object, i.e. a path in the config. What path TF> > should a virtual folder have if it doesn't appear in the folder tree? Or TF> > does it? TF> TF> Sorry, I am not up to date on that stuff, could you explain in more detail TF> what you mean by this and how it affects the selected solution? If a folder is in the tree, it has a path (== path in the tree) and hence we can unambiguously associate a profile with it. Otherwise it's less clear. You can find some more details about this stuff in doc/tech/options.txt, although it's woefully incomplete. Regards, VZ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
