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