Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto (update)

2011-03-13 Thread David Woodhouse
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 18:37 +, David Woodhouse wrote: I was told today that the GIO (and libsoup) async methods may not be called from a thread other than the one running the mainloop. I found a stupid race in libsoupĀ¹ and filed a fix, but the bug was closed INVALID because apparently it's

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto (update)

2011-03-13 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 21:32 +, David Woodhouse wrote: Ug, and now I've found that that workaround doesn't work either. If we try to rename a folder, we end up blocking in the main thread, waiting for the soup request that we deliberately put into an idle function so that it could run in

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto (update)

2011-02-17 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 18:37 +, David Woodhouse wrote: I assume that your intention is that the Camel async methods would *not* be similarly broken, and that you should be able to call them from *any* thread and expect them not to break? If so, we need be *very* careful about calling into

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto (update)

2010-09-29 Thread Milan Crha
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 12:52 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: Transient operations are now implicit: if you push a new status message onto a non-empty message stack, the message is treated as transient. A transient message just means there's a longer delay before the message is shown in

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto (update)

2010-09-27 Thread Matthew Barnes
Here's another update on how the Camel API upgrades are coming along. My initial roadmap from 2009 is referenced in [1], and my last update was in May [2]. This next round of API changes will be fairly disruptive, so I'd like to coordinate with anyone finishing up their own Camel branch so my

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-30 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Matthew, On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 11:58 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: In fact the mail-to-eds effort is part of what's motivating all this. Ah ! - ok :-) sounds good. To make the discussion more concrete, these are my current plans for Camel's extreme makeover. The final API will

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-27 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 14:24 +, Michael Meeks wrote: So - I'm well up for hiding complexity behind an asynchronous API in general; that's a great goal. I guess there is also the mail-to-e-d-s red herring to consider in the mix - that (potentially) adds a layer of asynchronicity to the

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-26 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Matthew, On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:46 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: There may be isolated cases internally to Camel where it can exploit parallelism in CPU-intensive tasks with threading or where threads are necessary for interacting with synchronous-only libraries, but it should be used

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-22 Thread Chenthill
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 14:57 +0530, Sankar P wrote: On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Jeffrey Stedfast f...@novell.com wrote: Matthew Barnes wrote: With work on Bonobo removal wrapping up, I've finally started taking a closer look at Camel (Evolution's mail storage and networking library)

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-21 Thread Sankar P
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Jeffrey Stedfast f...@novell.com wrote: Matthew Barnes wrote: With work on Bonobo removal wrapping up, I've finally started taking a closer look at Camel (Evolution's mail storage and networking library) and laying out plans for where I'd like it to go over

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-21 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 14:21 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: I agree with Michael Meeks' concerns here. I also think there are much more important fish to fry which are also far easier to tackle. Sure. I should have been clearer that this is by no means a high priority task. It will happen

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-20 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Matthew, On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:07 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: With work on Bonobo removal wrapping up, I've finally started taking a closer look at Camel (Evolution's mail storage and networking library) Ah - another life-time of cleaning up, and polishing code: the goal sounds

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-20 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:36 +, Michael Meeks wrote: Hmm; you really propose to remove all threading from camel's implementation ? or just from it's API ? a full removal might be problematic. There may be isolated cases internally to Camel where it can exploit parallelism in

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 14:21 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: The sqlite backend stuff could also use some work. As far as I'm aware, the tables are non-optimal. I really think it would be worthwhile engaging someone who has SQL guru on their resume and asking them for help on this. Maybe just an

[Evolution-hackers] Camel Manifesto

2009-11-18 Thread Matthew Barnes
With work on Bonobo removal wrapping up, I've finally started taking a closer look at Camel (Evolution's mail storage and networking library) and laying out plans for where I'd like it to go over the short and long term, with the ultimate goal of splitting it off as a useful standalone GNOME