No problem, Eric, I was asking if I should write a patch, so it's ok to
tell me to do so.
Hope, you had a good coffee :)
Am Freitag, den 25.06.2010, 06:04 +0200 schrieb Eric Charles:
> oops, I didn't mean "so patch it" but "so, patches would be good for
> those kind of behaviour".
> Still early
+1 you are absolutly right... A patch would be nice ;)
Bye,
Norman
2010/6/24 Tim-Christian Mundt :
> Hi,
>
> in IMAP the method MailboxMapper.countMailboxesWithName(mailboxName) is
> only ever used in StoreMailboxManager.mailboxExists(mailboxName,
> session). There the result is checked for dup
Hi Tim,
Same for the domain creation.
Currently, you may have duplicates in db, and when you list domains, it
"hides" it via a Set.
A strategy is to check if it already exists before writing it.
So patch it :)
Tks,
Eric
On 06/24/2010 10:41 PM, Tim-Christian Mundt wrote:
Hi,
in IMAP the me
oops, I didn't mean "so patch it" but "so, patches would be good for
those kind of behaviour".
Still early and missing coffee :)
Tks,
Eric
On 06/25/2010 05:29 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
Hi Tim,
Same for the domain creation.
Currently, you may have duplicates in db, and when you list domains,
it
Hi,
in IMAP the method MailboxMapper.countMailboxesWithName(mailboxName) is
only ever used in StoreMailboxManager.mailboxExists(mailboxName,
session). There the result is checked for duplicates. Duplicates should
be detected before writing and not when reading, for some stores (e.g.
maildir) it is