Re: libglade and mailbox structure - opinion requested

["kremhof" <kremhof siscom net>]

Stuart,
  Nice ideas.  Just one suggestion though.  IMAP servers generally (in my
experience) have folders like "INBOX", "INBOX.junk", "INBOX.stuff".  I
would like the root IMAP folder to be INBOX and then it cascades down from
there.  Of course, more flexibility of how IMAP is handled would be nice. 
For example, if I have one IMAP server, maybe I could treat it as two in
Balsa.  I could then have "INBOX.kevin" as the root of one of the virtual
servers and "INBOX.beth" as the root of the other.  Just some thoughts.  As
someone else mentioned, Netscape Messenger does a decent job of folder
management, but could be improved upon.

root   (some "main" gnode)
|- normal imap server \ (INBOX)
|
|- imapserver \ (INBOX.kevin)
|             |- stuff
|             |- morestuff \
|             |          |- submailbox
|- imapserver2 \ (INBOX.beth)
|             |- things
...

Kevin

Stuart Parmenter writes:

> 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.
> 
> Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> 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?)
> > 
> > MBG
> > 
> > --
> > Matthew Guenther                    If it doesn't work, force it. If
> > mguenthe@engr.uvic.ca               it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
> > http://www.netcom.ca/~mguenthe/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > balsa-list mailing list
> > balsa-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> balsa-list mailing list
> balsa-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list