On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:53:29 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Hello,
> 
>  I'm so fed up with the current "Search" implementation that I think
> about
> implementing the virtual folder support right now -- especially because
> it
> looks like it's not going to be very complicated, finally.

Could you give some examples of the problems you face with searching ?
I have never used it because I have found that it doesn`t  work very well. 
But, it would be good to have a proper search mechanism, I have sorely
missed it.
 
>  However I don't raelly know what exactly do we want to have. For
> example,
> initially I thought about opening a new folder view of the (virtual)
> "Search results" folder when you use "Search". Immediate questions:

By virtual folders, you mean a folder that shows selected content from
other, real, folders? or perhaps as Ujwal called it, "Views"? 
Is there any thing more to virtual folders than this?
 
> 1. should we have one global "Search results" or several of them?
> 
>    -> probably several as otherwise you wouldn't be able to search
>       for a few things in parallel

By global search result, I presume you mean just one result window.
First of all, that depends on how well M can multitask, but also how well
the mail server can. 
The only reason I can see for not having multitasked searching is if the
technical consequences are too huge, as in threading problems, usability
problems etc.

> 
> 2. which settings should it use and, in fact, should the virtual
>    folders appear in the tree?
> 
>    -> the manually created ones probably should, but the dynamic
>       ones like "Search results" shouldn't? and inherit the properties
>       of the folder(s) being searched?
> 
> 3. what do we want to use the virtual folders for except for this?

Virtual folders in itself sounds like a good idea, but there are some
consequences. If it is only used for search results, or rather collating
information without allowing the user to modify the collection, then the
issues aren�t too difficult. The problems start when the user is allowed to
create permanent virutal forlders, which refers to mail stored in other
folders, whether virtual or real. 

For example, lets say a user has a permanent virtual folder, that contains
messages from other folders, what should happen if a mail is deleted from a
real folder that is referenced in a virtual folder. If the user actually
wants to delete it, there�s no problem, the message is deleted in all
folders. But if the user is just cleaning up that particular folder, then
the reference in the virtual folder should still reference the real
message.  

Another issue is if the user deletes a message in a virtual folder,
does that mean he also wants to delete the real message or just the
reference.

A third issue is how do we handle virtual folders built on collated
information from other virtual folder, in arbitrary depths. Should this be
allowed? and what happens if any of the intermediate virtual folders are
deleted?

I think that to start off with, we should have virtual folders that only
shows unmodifiable information and that a virtual folder should not be
allowed in the tree. That makes it simple to implement. As long as the
implementation is generic it should`nt be too difficult to extend the
usage, and implementation, of virtual folders.


-- 
Thomas Finneid

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
No, I will not fix your computer.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Mahogany-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers

Reply via email to