Hi Stefano, Am Freitag, den 30.06.2006, 13:23 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> 1) flag: are flags dynamic? I understand from your document that we need > to store the flag types in a table so that their ID can be used. Is it > needed or the flag types are statically defined in the RFC? I was reading RFC again carefully about this topic. Handling many-to-many relationships might have some drawbacks. In fact the predefined system flags like \Seen and \Answered can't be extended, so we could store them either using a binary combination or one boolean column per flag. Well, I still don't like storing externally defined constants, like OR-ing flags to an int value. But it might have the highest performance and could be quite easy to handle. What do you think? Allowing user defined flags, that are called keywords in the RFC, is an additional feature. (Currently milestone 5 of the roadmap draft.) IMO the best approach would be a one-to-many relationship here. Table name: "keyword" message_id integer the message this keyword is assigned to name varchar name of the keyword primary key (message_id,name) Maybe it is not so good having a string in the primary key. In this case we could add an auto-increment primary and a unique index for (message_id,name). Joachim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
