Re: [Evolution-hackers] posting to folders
- From: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>
- To: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>
- Cc: Dan Winship <danw novell com>, evolution-hackers ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] posting to folders
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:53:41 -0400
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 22:16, Not Zed wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, but another api is still needed for cross posting.
> > yea, I suppose it would. What if NNTP just implemented the Transport
> > interfaces?
> Well they're really only for sending to rfc822 addresses I guess.
> i.e. how are we going to route the right addresses to the right
good point... I suppose that as a hack, we could just use an empty list
of recipients for NNTP (no To/Cc/Bcc) and let the NNTP transport extract
the Newsgroups header itself to figure out where it needs to go.
this isn't a a beautiful solution tho :(
> I guess its an idea though, but the proposed interface isn't really
> much more than having the same interface on a store.
> I don't think this would make sense unless we just got rid of
> CamelTransport entirely and just having it as virtual methods and
> capability bits on CamelStore?
I'm not really following why we need to merge the 2 objects. of course,
it's late and I'm tired so maybe I'm just not seeing the obvious :-)
> Could this simplify the store is also a transport issue?(or if we
> had interfaces on camelobjects and did it that way instead).
Well, it'd likely reduce the boilerplate code. I'm not really sure how
else it would simplify anything tho...
] [Thread Prev