On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 12:04 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > > it is indeed a synchronous API :)
> > > Syncronous, but it fails the "you know if you've succeeded when the
> > > function returns" test.
> >
> > most of the camel APIs don't fail that test
> >
> This was in the context of something I
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 14:39 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > So it sounds as if Camel could (in principle) respond to a move
> request
> > > > by issuing the appropriate IMAP command and then, starting a
> thread to
> > > > do the other activities (indexing the target folder and deleting
> th
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 09:46 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I'm preserving the exchange for context; my responses are sprinkled
> below.
> On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 23:47 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 15:55 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffre
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 09:46 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Speaking of complexity, evolution/camel (and maybe Gnome?) do a kind
> of
> objects with C. Why not just use C++? Was the C++ toolchain too
> unreliable at the start, or was there some other reason?
I didn't mean to exclude other alternativ
I'm preserving the exchange for context; my responses are sprinkled
below.
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 23:47 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 15:55 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Second question: even if it c
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 15:55 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > >
> > > Second question: even if it creates a folder, does it need to stick
> > > around for the folder creation to finish? I think I remember seeing
> > > that camel was single-
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > [Ross wrote]
> > Second question: even if it creates a folder, does it need to stick
> > around for the folder creation to finish? I think I remember seeing
> > that camel was single-threaded
>
> not true...
>
> > , relying on the cl
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:39 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 08:14 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
> > server says:
> >
> > * 1 EXPUNGE
> >
> > camel-imap-summary does:
> >
> > g_ptr_array_remove_index (messages, seqid - 1);
>
> In imap_rescan, for example in case a messa
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 08:14 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> server says:
>
> * 1 EXPUNGE
>
> camel-imap-summary does:
>
> g_ptr_array_remove_index (messages, seqid - 1);
In imap_rescan, for example in case a message got removed by another
E-mail client while this E-mail client was not online.
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 13:00 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> What I disliked most about Camel's 'imap' code, though, is the fact that
> the sequences have to correspond to the array indexes of the
> CamelFolderSummary. It sounds like it would have been more easy if that
> was a key in a hashtable.
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:45 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:34 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > The imap4 project is making things look better, though all in all it's
> > still much of the same (blocking and waiting for results, in stead of
> > letting the server do most
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 17:43 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > Why does it need to create a CamelFolder for the destination at all,
> > > assuming I keep the focus on the source folder?
> >
> > because you need both a source and a destinati
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:34 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> The imap4 project is making things look better, though all in all it's
> still much of the same (blocking and waiting for results, in stead of
> letting the server do most the work and do pipelining).
adding pipelining support would not b
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 20:22 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > Why does it need to create a CamelFolder for the destination at all,
> > assuming I keep the focus on the source folder?
>
> because you need both a source and a destination folder to move the
> message(s) to?
>
> kinda hard to move m
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 16:02 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:27 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:13 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 17:11 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:23 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:27 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:13 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 17:11 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:23 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
.
> > All good points. I should explain I'm thinking of
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:13 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 17:11 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:23 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > it's not possible to do better w/o dropping features
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 17:11 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:23 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > it's not possible to do better w/o dropping features like message
> > > threading.
> > >
> > > In fact, the above
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:23 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > it's not possible to do better w/o dropping features like message
> > threading.
> >
> > In fact, the above minimalizing of header fetching already breaks the
> > quick context-me
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> it's not possible to do better w/o dropping features like message
> threading.
>
> In fact, the above minimalizing of header fetching already breaks the
> quick context-menu "vfolder on mailing-list" and "filter on
> mailing-list" featur
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 09:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> I think the laptop problem is solved with the "basic headers" feature,
> at least as far as collecting new summary info is concerned.
>
> Syncing flags is another story, and where the real
> slowness/user-frustration lies.
>
> I'm sure
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:39 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> > > The best way is to ask for the ENVELOPE and the remaining info using the
> > > normal BODY.PEEK method.
>
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > The best way is to ask for the ENVELOPE and the remaining info using the
> > normal BODY.PEEK method.
>
> Have you actually ever tested this theory? or did you just pull th
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 09:25 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > In any case, none of the current Evolution code implements consuming the
> > CONDSTORE capabilities of some modern IMAP servers (like MBox and
> > Cyrus).
> >
> > CONDSTORE is really going to make an enormous difference in bandwidth
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 08:25 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le jeudi 07 juin 2007 à 01:53 +0300, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > > Without immediately writing to disk work, the download by itself will
> > > consume around 120 MB of R
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 04:56 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 12:28 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 03:05 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > It improves the situation by setting your url-s
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 12:28 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 03:05 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It improves the situation by setting your url-string to have the
> > > "basic_headers" option. In the imap cod
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 03:05 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> >
> > It improves the situation by setting your url-string to have the
> > "basic_headers" option. In the imap code of Camel, it will then ask for
> > less headers (but still way too m
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:56 +0300, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 08:25 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le jeudi 07 juin 2007 à 01:53 +0300, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > > Without immediately writing to disk work, the download by itself will
> > > consume around 120 MB of R
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 08:25 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 juin 2007 à 01:53 +0300, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > Without immediately writing to disk work, the download by itself will
> > consume around 120 MB of RAM, and will most likely fail due to network
> > timeouts and othe
Le jeudi 07 juin 2007 à 01:53 +0300, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> Without immediately writing to disk work, the download by itself will
> consume around 120 MB of RAM, and will most likely fail due to network
> timeouts and other such problems (it'll take a while, since Evolution
> fetches a ridicul
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:10 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> > of
> > doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I
> > have
> > an I
On Thursday 31 May 2007 16:09, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 17:18 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Single namespace. It's all INBOX.folder.subfolder.
> > > The one wrinkle is that in some cases 'folder' exists in the namespace,
> > > but is not an actual box or fo
2007/5/31, Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:20 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> > 2007/5/31, Matthew Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > > What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently
> > >
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:22 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> That sounds as if no upgrade of other apps would be forced.
> Or did you mean the stuff the evolution and gtk+ depends on would all
> need to go to newer versions? That's probably a lot of stuff, but it's
> not so bad.
Hard to predict. You
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 17:18 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
[snip]
> > Single namespace. It's all INBOX.folder.subfolder.
> > The one wrinkle is that in some cases 'folder' exists in the namespace,
> > but is not an actual box or folder (whatever the right term is) on the
> > server: INBOX.folder.s
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:20 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> 2007/5/31, Matthew Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has
> > > evo
> > > 2.6. I notice that's a bit dated (alt
2007/5/31, Matthew Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has
> > evo
> > 2.6. I notice that's a bit dated (although I did see that a few months ago
> > some of the Debian packag
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:38 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:10 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am
> > > thinking of
> > > doing a bit more to see if
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:38 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:10 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has
> > > evo
> > > 2.6. I notice that's a bit da
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:10 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has
> > evo
> > 2.6. I notice that's a bit dated (although I did see that a few months ago
> > some of the D
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has evo
> 2.6. I notice that's a bit dated (although I did see that a few months ago
> some of the Debian packagers were interested in making a more recent
> version).
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:22 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:14 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > > [Ross] What version to start with?
> >
> > I would prefer, if you can try it with Evolution 2.10.2. It is the
> > most recent stable release.
> Is EVOLUTION_DATA_SERVER_1_10_2
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:14 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > [Ross] What version to start with?
>
> I would prefer, if you can try it with Evolution 2.10.2. It is the
> most recent stable release.
Is EVOLUTION_DATA_SERVER_1_10_2 the corresponding tag to use for
evolution-data-server?
--
Ross
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:10 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> > of
> > doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I
> > have
> > an I
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:10 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> > of
> > doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I
> > have
> > an
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:14 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> > of
> > doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I
> > have
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> of
> doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I have
> an IMAP mailbox which is very large, both in terms of folders (over 100) and
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Hi. I've been getting into the code of evolution recently, and am thinking
> of
> doing a bit more to see if I can get it working OK for my situation. I have
> an IMAP mailbox which is very large, both in terms of folders (over 100)
49 matches
Mail list logo
