--- Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Monday 26 April 2004 15:04, Hugh Beaumont wrote:Hi,If anyone wants to take a shot at it, please, by all means, be my guest!
Was any progress ever made in regard to this thread: (from around May 2003) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105180440400003&r=1&w=2 Short version: Have sqwebmail hide deleted messages from the list of messages.
I've been playing around some and it seems there are two ways to do this:
1. hide the messages in the message list
2. actually do the proper delete/move to trash/whatever when the delete button is pressed.
Option 1 is (at first) pretty easy:
I added:
if (type[0] == MSGTYPE_DELETED)
{
continue;
}
near line 443 of folder.c
This gets the messages out of the list but causes the message number to be broken. For example if
you delete messages #2, the list skips it.
1. message from here
3. message from here
4. message from here
This causes a problem with the messages numbering. I've not looked at how hard it would be to fix
(it is more than just decrementing the message count though). Just glancing at it I can imagine it
getting a bit more complicated.
I don't believe -- unless you want to rewrite entire parts of the maildir reading library -- that this would be a feasible solution. ... And furthermore, those functions are shared with Courier's IMAP / POP servers, which would greatly complicate the process of making SqWebMail-specific changes to them.
I don't think that's a good route to go with... IMO.
Option 2 would be the best method most likely.
This all may be quickly solved (I'm just sort of playing around right now and having fun thumbing
through my old copy of K & R :)
Now some questions:
does anyone know of a previous reason why the messages are left around in the folder list? Do some
users have a use for this? The previous thread seemed to show that no one had any good reason to
keep them displayed.
Personally, I'm not aware of ever hearing Sam explicitly state why. But my assumption has always been that it's essentially "because that's how IMAP and POP work with the folders." Neither IMAP nor POP will actually delete messages from an active folder without some other "confirmation" action. In the case of IMAP, an explicit "EXPUNGE" command must be issued after the deletion to really delete the messages, IIRC. And in the case of POP, I don't believe the messages are actually removed after being marked as deleted, unless a successful "QUIT" command is issued to end the session.
So, my guess is that doing something different in SqWebMail's maildir handling would rather complicate the code.
Admittedly, there seems to be no "point" per se of still showing the messages, since SqWebMail has no un-delete command. -- But I personally feel that's an oversight.
If SqWebMail were to leave the deleted messages' checkboxes active, and included an "Undelete" command, then I believe this might very well be a more favorable solution than immediate deletions anyway in many cases.
Also, does anyone use the message numbering? ie.
1. message one 2. message two
etc..
(the first column in the message list)
Getting rid of this would solve 1/2 of the message number problem. The other part would be the
whole displaying messages 20-30 of 100 etc. It is the more complex of the two.
Not really. Admittedly, the numbering as shown on the page, probably isn't used by anyone in any way whatsoever except as a visual indicator of where you are relatively in the list. However, the numbering upon which it is based (the "pos" variable) is used internally to SqWebMail, and can't be done away with -- at least not easily, and most probably not at all.
Furthermore, the "20-30 of 100" feature isn't really any more complex to change than the other numbering (though as I state above, that itself is more so than you probably imagine) and if the first is "properly" handled, should in fact work unmodified with whatever change you make. -- I can assure you of that since, as the author of that particular feature, I can *unequivocally* state that it uses the very same variables as the main numbering does... it in fact merely uses a couple of those pre-existing variables and displays them as part of a string. -- Well, I think it may define _one_ new one, but that one is simply used to store the value of adding "pos" and the size of the list as defined by your preferences. *shrug* No big there, since both of those values are in fact themselves pre-defined.
I would appreciate any input. In most cases things are designed a certain way for a reason so I'm
curious in what way people currently use the message number display.
A good attitude in general to be sure. =)
I personally feel that the current method designed by Sam is primarily lacking in its inability to undelete messages, rather than it being the wrong way to do things altogether or anything like that. -- But I'm sure some might disagree with me. :-)
Anyway, there's my input. Hope it's helpful in some way.
-jab
