Re[2]: How about common virtual folder?
Hi everybody! The 4.4.2004 at 11:46 PM Allie wrote: AM The Hybrid concept is really a tedious one to make work and to AM implement without creating confusion and problems I wholly agree with you, although confusion is not the only reason why I think VFs should not be hybrid. -- Regards, Marco Lackovic Using The Bat! v2.05 Beta/14 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current beta is 2.05 beta 14 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Januk Aggarwal, [JA] wrote: JA Whereas the alternative is straight-forward. You just drag and JA drop a message, and you're done. The message only exists in one JA place on your HD, in the VF message base. I agree with Greg that mixing real with virtual messages isn't a good idea. Virtual folders should really be just that, virtual. This makes it easy to handle them, i.e., delete their contents or the folders entirely without having to worry about losing actual messages. Though I agree that it would be good if one could manually add messages to these folders, links to the actual messages should be created with the drag and drop action, rather than the messages actually being moved to the folder. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.04.7 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re[4]: How about common virtual folder?
Hi everybody! The 3.4.2004 at 15.06 Patrick wrote: PE make a VF send or received in 2003 export all messages which are PE in this VF (such a function should be provided) and physically PE delete them. Well, if they would implement such function, you are perfectly right. Then I would agree to completely drop the normal folders. -- Regards, Marco Lackovic Using The Bat! v2.04.7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re[2]: How about common virtual folder?
Hi everybody! Not only I agree with Greg and Allie and MAU that mixing real with virtual messages isn't a good idea, I do believe it does not make any sense. The discussion, which has become very complicated and tedious to follow, so far has found patches to patches in the attempt to implement hybrid VFs at all costs. I think we should better focus on the question is there a real need to have (physical or manually linked it's a secondary point) messages into VFs?. If such a need really exists then we might look for a solution, if not then we should not lose our time and move to another topic. In my opinion VFs should not contain physical nor manually linked messages because, as I showed earlier (see my other message in the Re: Search / Virtual Folder thread as reply to Januk), you can obtain whatever combination you desire with pure VFs (in a clear, intuitive and easy way) and I challenge anyone to show even one single situation where hybrid VFs are necessary to obtain. If eventually such need would be found then I would definitely reject the idea of physical messages into VFs and agree with the Greg's definition of hybrid VF as folder that contains only pointers to messages which are created with a filter /or dragging of messages. But even this, I repeat, appears to me as a bad scenario. Today at 6.39 Januk wrote: I think VF folders need to be DIFFERENTIATED in the folder pane because presently they are NOT. JA You can assign them a colour group... I think what Greg meant was to differentiate them with a different icon, just like Inbox and Outbox are marked with different arrows, or like the Junk mail folder is marked with a red cross on it. VFs could be differentiated, for example, by making them transparent (representing their virtual nature), or with the letter v over them. JA I don't know how much more CLEAR I can be. You didn't respond to JA my example that I posted in my last message, so I assume you JA missed it. The example discusses pretty much all of your JA questions. I personally found that quite confused and sincerely suggested me that you don't know the functioning of present filters and/or don't know what's the purpose of VFs and/or you missed the point of discussion. Don't take it personally, I meant that with no offense. -- Regards, Marco Lackovic Using The Bat! v2.04.7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Hello Marco, Sunday, April 4, 2004, 8:09:25 AM, you wrote: MLNot only I agree with Greg and Allie and MAU that mixing real with ML virtual messages isn't a good idea, I do believe it does not make any ML sense. The discussion, which has become very complicated and tedious ML to follow, so far has found patches to patches in the attempt to ML implement hybrid VFs at all costs. I stopped following the thread long ago, as I found no need/desire/interest in virtual folders, and it sure seems to me also that time would be better spent fixing existing problems, than to try to implement an idea that people don't seem to agree on. This sounds more like a database issue... pointers to files or messages, and it sounds like it should have been fought out in tbdev first, not here. just my 1 1/2 cents worth ;) -- Best regards, Paul Using The Bat! v2.05 Beta/12 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Mar2004 (4.1.357) (avast! version number) 0404-0 (02.04.2004) (avast! DB version number) 4.1.357 (avast! plugin version number) Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Marco Lackovic, [ML] wrote: ML The discussion, which has become very complicated and tedious to ML follow, so far has found patches to patches in the attempt to ML implement hybrid VFs at all costs. This very much eclipses my feeling on this. The Hybrid concept is really a tedious one to make work and to implement without creating confusion and problems for all except those who want it. :) Keep it as simple as possible. TB! has been quite remarkable in making so much power so relatively simple to harness. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.04.7 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Marco Lackovic, [ML] wrote: ML Well, if they would implement such function, you are perfectly ML right. Then I would agree to completely drop the normal folders. I actually wish this were really possible. I use this concept with PowerMarks and Opera's M2 works in this way. It's great when you can have the same messages being listed in separate virtual folders while everything is actually in a single location that may also be viewed as such if required. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.04.7 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Hello Allie, Sunday, April 4, 2004, 9:38:51 AM, you wrote: AM This very much eclipses my feeling on this. The Hybrid concept is AM really a tedious one to make work and to implement without creating AM confusion and problems for all except those who want it. :) Keep it as AM simple as possible. TB! has been quite remarkable in making so much AM power so relatively simple to harness. how do I know if I want it when I can't figure out how it works, or what I am supposed to do with it? before it even got fully implemented it was already under deep discussion to change it, or say it wasn't supposed to work that way... -- Best regards, Paul Using The Bat! v2.05 Beta/12 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Mar2004 (4.1.357) (avast! version number) 0404-0 (02.04.2004) (avast! DB version number) 4.1.357 (avast! plugin version number) Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Hello Paul, Sunday, April 4, 2004, 9:34:21 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote: PC how do I know if I want it when I can't figure out how it works, or what PC I am supposed to do with it? PC before it even got fully implemented it was already under deep PC discussion to change it, or say it wasn't supposed to work that way... ,- [ Per Stefan in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] | So, this Beta is about new Virtual Folders concept. Your | suggestions/thoughts/reports are welcome. `- IMHO the above is Stefan asking which is why the discussion exists. -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat! v2.05 Beta/12 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Paul Cartwright, [PC] wrote: PC good point, I'll go back to trying to figure out what to do with PC these virtual folders ;) I can't comment on them, because I PC haven't figured out a good way to use them. Since I already use PC the ticker with folders as a column, sort all my messages by PC filters into folders, I'm not sure I understand what I could do PC with a virtual folder or view. It makes you able to sort a group of messages into subgroups without actually having to physically separate them. This actually offers easier flexibility. I personally would prefer not having my messages physically distributed across too many message bases. Virtual folders would make me able to do this and yet be able to, as the need arises, have only particular messages from the real folder be shown in a virtual folder. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.04.7 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Hello Paul, Sunday, April 4, 2004, 10:12:54 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote: GS IMHO the above is Stefan asking which is why the discussion exists. PC good point, I'll go back to trying to figure out what to do with these PC virtual folders ;) I can't comment on them, because I haven't figured PC out a good way to use them. Since I already use the ticker with folders PC as a column, sort all my messages by filters into folders, I'm not sure PC I understand what I could do with a virtual folder or view. I to had to think about it. My thoughts to date for use of VFs are as follows: 1 Save searches where I am relatively certain the results are going to needed in the future. 2 To provide a thread or discussion when participants' messages are already filtered to different folders. Actually it was Januk who jogged my thinking here in our prior discussion. For example I recently completed course work at the local university. I had a separate filter and folder for the professor, and one for the group that I belonged in for the course. Many times conversations would occur between myself and the professor which really dealt with group work. It would have been nice to be able to collect all of these threads on one subject matter in one folder. The problem here is how to do it automatically because sometime a person replying did not reply to all. This is where being able to create a pointer through a manual process would be nice because it is difficult to control behavior of all participants in a discussion to capture automatically through a filter of some kind. I think it is here is where some lack of consistency exists. Do you allow a single message to be moved to the VF so now it is not completely virtual since an actual message exists in the VF, or do you provide an alternative type move where you are just creating a pointer without actually moving the message. I think some lack of consistency exists on how this move is done. Januk suggested dragging and dropping which I think is Ok as long the user knows whether they are creating a pointer or actually moving the message. I think the confusion on the hybrid folder is the definition. Is the hybrid defined as a folder which allows both virtual messages and ACTUAL messages, or is the hybrid folder the virtual messages created by an automatic action (i.e. filter) and additional manually added messages which are POINTERS to the ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL MESSAGES. The above is where I thought about redundancy as it pertains to the hybrid folder. If the hybrid stores just pointers which are created automatically and manually. You have a form of redundancy in the fact you have to set up pointers on the manually added messages. It is here where having the ability to store messages would eliminate redundancy on the manually added messages. Now thinking about it out loud VFs by their nature are redundant because you have both the message in the actual folder and the pointers to create the VFs. It is one the manual messages where I think ideals need to be discussed. HTH! -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat! v2.05 Beta/12 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: How about common virtual folder?
Hello Greg, On Sunday, April 4, 2004 at 00:40 GMT -0600, special agents were informed that Greg Strong leaked: Peter was quite CLEAR. I don't know how much more CLEAR I can be. You didn't respond to my example that I posted in my last message, so I assume you missed it. The example discusses pretty much all of your questions. I am saying that I would like to see a folder which can have search results, individual pointers to messages that exist elsewhere AND real messages. From where I sit, that idea does *not* contradict use as pure VF or pure regular folders. Please re-read the example if that's not CLEAR. Let the user decide. That's exactly the crux of MY argument. -- Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal Current beta is 2.05 beta 12 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
