Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-28 Thread Ross Burton
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:23 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 EAccount and EAccountList are private to Evolution app and should not be
 used inside e-d-s

Would it be best to rename the e-account and e-account-list
files/functions in e-d-s then, as they are used and there is obviously
potential for incorrect symbol resolution?

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-28 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
what uses them?

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 16:30 +, Ross Burton wrote:
 On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:23 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
  EAccount and EAccountList are private to Evolution app and should not be
  used inside e-d-s
 
 Would it be best to rename the e-account and e-account-list
 files/functions in e-d-s then, as they are used and there is obviously
 potential for incorrect symbol resolution?
 
 Ross
-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  - www.novell.com

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-28 Thread Ross Burton
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 12:23 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 what uses them?

From a very rough grep:

./calendar/libedata-cal/e-cal-backend-util.c
./servers/exchange/storage/exchange-account.c

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-25 Thread Sarfraaz Ahmed
Hi,

 When we get around to doing unified account management then this might be 
 of great help if most of the desired structures are in libedataserver.
 So i am waiting for a somebody to validate my line of reasoning here.

The reasoning is good. We finally should have only one set of API's to
work with. But, i guess, all the stake holders who would get affected in
this need to be brought to table and made things clear. I guess, this
would mean, mailer, groupwise and exchange and some part of shell as
well, if i am right. 

The sooner this thing is consolidated, the better, since we can have
enough time to fix the broken pieces, if any.

Cheers
-- Sarfraaz

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


[Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Irene
Hi, Harish 

I built evolution 2.6 on my Solaris X86 the other day. The build process
was successful, however, as soon as I started evolution-2.6, it crashed.
We investigated this problem and arrived at the following conclusions:

camel_vee_folder_hash_folder in
evolution-data-server/camle/camel-vee-folder.c invokes functions
including md5_init, md5_update and md5_final. The fact is, two copies of
md5_utils.[c|h] with exactly same functions defined, exist in the
evolution system, one in evolution-data-server/libedataser and the other
in evolution/e-utils. Camel-vee-folder.c includes
evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h, but when evolution
runs, the md5_* functions in evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.c instead of
those in evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.c are invoked,
which we think should not be the case. 

Currently, the MD5Context structures in
evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h and
evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.h are different with the first one not
having a doByteReverse member. 

When evolution-2.6 is run, the ctx variable in
camel_vee_folder_hash_folder does not have doByteReverse, but it is
passed into the md5_* functions, a doByteReverse (which actually points
to something else in the stack) is modified.  This is the reason why
evolution-2.6 crashes under Solaris. We are curious why it works well
under linux with the stack illegally changed.

When we went further into this issue, we saw that there's a huge lot of
duplication in evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils.
With such duplications, similar problems may surface in the future when
one copy of the code is modified while the other remains unchanged. 

We think that something should be done to solve this problem. 

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Ross Burton
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:33 +0800, Irene wrote:
 Currently, the MD5Context structures in
 evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h and
 evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.h are different with the first one not
 having a doByteReverse member. 

Hm, that would be my fault: I've been working with e-d-s and cleaned up
the libedataserver/md5-utils to remove the doByteReverse member.  The
obvious solution is to remove md5-utils from e-utils.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Ross Burton
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:19 +, Ross Burton wrote:
 On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:33 +0800, Irene wrote:
  Currently, the MD5Context structures in
  evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h and
  evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.h are different with the first one not
  having a doByteReverse member. 
 
 Hm, that would be my fault: I've been working with e-d-s and cleaned up
 the libedataserver/md5-utils to remove the doByteReverse member.  The
 obvious solution is to remove md5-utils from e-utils.

It looks as if the md5-utils in e-util isn't used at all in Evolution,
OK to remove it from evolution HEAD?

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:27 +, Ross Burton wrote:
 On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:19 +, Ross Burton wrote:
  On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:33 +0800, Irene wrote:
   Currently, the MD5Context structures in
   evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h and
   evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.h are different with the first one not
   having a doByteReverse member. 
  
  Hm, that would be my fault: I've been working with e-d-s and cleaned up
  the libedataserver/md5-utils to remove the doByteReverse member.  The
  obvious solution is to remove md5-utils from e-utils.
 
 It looks as if the md5-utils in e-util isn't used at all in Evolution,
 OK to remove it from evolution HEAD?

I agree. Mailer guys, anyone think otherwise ?

 Ross

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Irene
Hi, 
Md5-utils.ch are not the only files that are duplicated. Most of the
files in evolution/e-util have similar copies in
evolution-data-server/libedataserver. We are worried that in the future,
if files in libedataserver are modified with their counterparts in
e-util unchanged, more annoying bugs will come into being. 

BTW, we've debugged with evolution-2.6 under Linux and found that
functions e-util/md5-utils.c were wrongly used too. The reason why
evolution survives under linux with this mistake is probably due to the
differences between Linux and Solaris structures. 

You may have a try by setting a breakpoint at
camel_vee_folder_has_folder, print ctx (you'll see no doByteReverse
here), and step in to md5_init, also print *ctx, now, doByteReverse
comes out somehow.

Thanks 

--Irene

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 18:09, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
 On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:27 +, Ross Burton wrote:
  On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:19 +, Ross Burton wrote:
   On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:33 +0800, Irene wrote:
Currently, the MD5Context structures in
evolution-data-server/libedataserver/md5-utils.h and
evolution/e-utils/md5-utils.h are different with the first one not
having a doByteReverse member. 
   
   Hm, that would be my fault: I've been working with e-d-s and cleaned up
   the libedataserver/md5-utils to remove the doByteReverse member.  The
   obvious solution is to remove md5-utils from e-utils.
  
  It looks as if the md5-utils in e-util isn't used at all in Evolution,
  OK to remove it from evolution HEAD?
 
 I agree. Mailer guys, anyone think otherwise ?
 
  Ross
 
 ___
 Evolution-hackers mailing list
 Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
  Md5-utils.ch are not the only files that are duplicated. Most of the
  files in evolution/e-util have similar copies in
  evolution-data-server/libedataserver.

Yes. To be more precise, evolution-exchange in addition to e-util and
libedataserver :-). 

 I've created a wiki page http://live.gnome.org/EvolutionEUtilDieDieDie
 listing the files which are identical, which are different, etc, to
 track this.
 
 Ross

Thanks Ross :-). That really gets us moving to the next step.

Shreyas had taken the cause up [http://go-evolution.org/Evo2.6#Misc]
early during the cycle and IIRC, had started doing something on it too. 
Shreyas ?


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Ross Burton
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 23:49 +0530, Shreyas Sriniavasan wrote:
 On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 16:48 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
Md5-utils.ch are not the only files that are duplicated. Most 
of the
files in evolution/e-util have similar copies in
evolution-data-server/libedataserver.
  Thanks Ross :-). That really gets us moving to the next step.
  
  Shreyas had taken the cause up [http://go-evolution.org/Evo2.6#Misc]
  early during the cycle and IIRC, had started doing something on it too. 
  Shreyas ?
 
 Oh well, i had started doing something about it but it would entail 
 moving most of the duplicate code out of e-util. This ofcourse would 
 mean that most of the current e-util dependencies would then also
 depend on libedataserver. We never reached a consensus on whether thats
 a valid thing to do. If we can have consensus on that then doing it is
 just massive sed-awk operation. Ofcourse, a lot of those code werent in 
 sync either when i last checked. We need to figure out if we need to 
 make a new gal out of libedataserver. It needs to have stuff which most of 
 evolution and e-d-s can link to.

As evolution obviously depends on libedataserver already, surely for the
files which are identical there is no problem at all?  That leaves the
files which have the same name yet are different (e-account, e-util) to
be merged somehow, and then e-util can become a place for purely
Evolution utility functions.

http://live.gnome.org/EvolutionEUtilDieDieDie summarises the status for
each of the files in e-util/.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] About evolution-data-server/libedataser and evolution/e-utils

2005-11-24 Thread Tor Lillqvist
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 18:57 +, Ross Burton wrote:
 As evolution obviously depends on libedataserver already, surely for the
 files which are identical there is no problem at all?

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't control myself, sorry, and went ahead
with one of the duplicates: I changed the inclusions of e-time-utils.h
in evolution end evolution-exchange to include it from libedataserver
instead, and committed. Now the evolution copy of e-time-utils.h can be
dropped from being installed. Presumably we can drop e-time-utils.c also
from the sources of libeutil, or does Evo need to maintain 100% ABI
compatibility in its shared libraries between releases? Is there
3rd-party code (plugins) in the wild that would expect to find these
entry points in the libeutil shared library?

I think it would be fine to just go ahead with changes like this that
are obviously right and don't affect code behaviour, instead of waiting
for discussion and approval which might never appear.

--tml


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers