On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:22:15 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Michael A Chase
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MAC> The first cut could be static virtual folders. That should be much easier
MAC> to implement and would allow outside programs to create them as needed.
Hmm, I haven't thought about this. In fact, I realize that I haven't even
thought of saving the virtual folders at all. But you're right, I
definitely should.
So what will be the format for a vfolder? A text file containing the lines
like
other/folder/name: uid1,uid2,uid3uidN
?
MAC> The virtual folders should definitely appear in the tree as just another
MAC> type of folder. Whether their content is static or dynamic should just be
MAC> one of their attributes. The tree structure of the folders and their
MAC> ability to inherit attributes is one of the major strengths of Mahogany.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree :-) But the problem here is not that the
folder is virtual, but rather that the "Search results" folder is
transitional by nature, so there doesn't seem to be a lot of sense in
putting it in the tree...
And (this is also in reply to Ujwal), I don't understand how do you
propose to put multiple search results folders in the tree? For me, either
we have one global "search results" in a tree or a temporary (not stored in
the tree and not saved on disk) "search results" folder is created for each
new search. Of course, we might have both, is this what you mean?
MAC> I'm actually more interested in the method used for identifying messages
MAC> to select other folders (including virtual folders).
For static vfolders we need just the UID of the messages, so I don't need
to worry about this for now...
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
