Re: libglade and mailbox structure - opinion requested

sorry, my mail was a bit confusing.

here's how i think it should be:

root   (some "main" gnode)
|- imapserver \
|             |- inbox
|             |- mailbox \
|             |          |- submailbox
|             \- trash
|- directory \
|            |- mailbox1
|            |- directory \
|                         |- mailbox6
|            |- mhfolder \
|                        |- otherfolder
|- random mailbox
(ok, this isn't really that much clearer...)

so, I don't think mailboxes should hold on to MailboxNode's....  it
might be ok to put the information that is currently stored in them in
the mailbox.

so my idea is basically to have the idea of "top level objects" that
store mailboxes...

like a server, and as Pawel suggested a directory.

so all mailboxes would either have a directory or a server pointer and
they would be part of that object's gnode (if we keep mailboxnodes
around, the gnode would probably have them in it).  these gnodes would
be nodes in a "master" gnode which would get inserted in to the tree.

I hope this makes more sense.... I will post more info once I start
hacking on it to let you know what I think the best route to take is.


Matthew Guenther wrote:
> Call me dense, but I have to echo this sentiment.  I'm not at all sure what
> the advantage to changing the current structure is, and if it needs to be
> changed, what this approach has to offer.
> (This may be because I've been working/using Balsa strictly for reading
> local mailboxes, with fetchmail getting my mail.  I've gotten the impression
> that most of the problems with the current mailbox organization stem from
> IMAP and POP3 operation.  Am I way off base here?)
> --
> Matthew Guenther                    If it doesn't work, force it. If
>               it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
> _______________________________________________
> balsa-list mailing list

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]