paul wrote:
> On 2012-06-26 11:45 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > anyway: i think i still prefer the idea that the content cache
> > directories be kept in the message tree. but i also understand why
> > one might want them separate. if the idea is that the message tree
> > and the cache tree are roughly isomorphic, i'll bet that could be made
> > a per-user choice, as long as the content directories were really
> > named "53.mime/" and not simply "53/" -- i.e., the messages and the
> > mime-dirs could either live in the same tree or not, since they use
> > different parts of the namespace. (but clients certainly would need
> > to be careful not to assume one model or the other.)
>
> lots of code (here i'm thinking of uw-imap) makes the assumption that if
> there's a directory then it's a folder. such names need not be
> all-numeric or semi-numeric. you'd have to preface the name with a dot
> ('.') to prevent it from opendir()'ing or even chdir()'ing. i see this
> as an unfortunate and unnecessary burden on code whose assumptions have
> been valid for a long time.
ah, good point. i never ever use nested folders, and so didn't even
consider that issue. and i also wasn't considering non-nmh clients
of the tree.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 64.6 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
