Re: libglade and mailbox structure - opinion requested

[Peter Williams <peter newton cx>]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:20:01 Pawel Salek wrote:
> I agree the present data organisation is not perfect. We load up PropList
> tree (I understood from communication with Peter Williams this one is going
> to be changed), which is converted to balsa_app.mailbox_nodes, and finally
we
[....]

Well, I don't know how much you all remember, but the BALSA-CONFIG branch
of CVS is basically stable. Instead of libPropList we use a thin layer around
gnome-config; this layer automates many of the configuration issues, such as
session management and providing defaults.

I don't want to merge the branches yet, but I would really like to have some
other
people play with it and comment.

I hope that the Balsa-config API will make things like filters easier, as it
should
make it easy to store arrays of rules and the like, and reading them into
memory
is ridiculously easy (although the basis of this is maybe it a bit precarious
-- email
me for a more complete description, interested parties).

I'm afraid that I won't be able to be too active on Balsa for a while, as my 
'day job' at Helix Code is fun, but I end up a little drained of energy to go
home
and program some more. I intend to fix some stuff with the init druid (they
are
committed in HEAD but not latest-0-8) and I hope to assist Pawel with a new
folder model.

As I am understanding Stuart's idea, instead of keeping a global 'local mail
directory'
and showing mailboxes directly on the CTree, we have a couple of server-like
sources,
each of which provides a tree of folders: one being a local mail directory,
another
being an IMAP server, another being a POP3 server that provides one inbox.
Sorry, I
don't think I'm making things any clearer :-)

While we're on this I would like to mention that I'd enjoy rm -rf'ing
libmutt.... but that
would be a lot of effort for a questionable gain.

-- 
=============================================
Peter Williams peter@newton.cx / peterw@helixcode.com