On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 05:46, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 15:57, Dan Winship wrote: > > And you forgot to mention the Clever Hack for this, which is that the > > mailer needs to claim that vfolders are syncable, and then you create a > > vfolder that selects the kinds of messages you want to sync, and tell > > the shell to sync only that folder. I think this was considered an > > enhancement on top of the must-happen-for-1.2 stuff though. > > Yeah. I actually didn't mention it here because it's independent from > the shell hackery, and also because I am not sure if this requires extra > work on Camel. Would claiming that the vfolders are syncable Just Work > (tm)?
Not that I know of. Stores that are capable of working offline use a different class heirarchy, and well, it wouldn't make sense at all for vfolders to be in that class heirachy since they are never connected or otherwise. IMHO its not a very good idea anyway. Hence the use of 'hack' to describe it. We can just use the vfolder dialogue to specify rules on a per store or even per-folder basis, and just do all the processing in camel as it is done now (although the disconnected store code has a lot of problems like poor thread safety). We only need to add a small interface to a disconnectable store to say what search to perform to sync stuff against. I would guess that just using a set of rules per store would suffice. Although the rule set would work similarly to the vfolder code, there's not enough commonality to use the vfolder code, and in total its only a dozen lines of code or so anyway. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
