[Evolution-hackers] Re: camel-private.h not installed

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

Right, well, the url never really ever changes - if it does a new store
object will be created anyway, so I don't think that should be a major
issue.

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:52 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:58 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > which is awkward, to say the least, and not really an option for
> > > distributed code.
> > 
> > Well you don't need to do that anyway, you could path it in a -I thing.
> 
> Sure, much better.
> 
> > > Access to a locking mechanism for externally developed components is
> > > really necessary unless they should use homegrown solutions, which is
> > > not an option either I guess.
> > 
> > Hmm, i'm not sure - it might depend on the particular lock.  It is
> > probably possible to get away with not using any of those locks but just
> > defining your own.  That's how camel-imap-* used to work, but because of
> > other problems (mainly complexity and races due to the the 4 levels of
> > interested parties, service, store, disco-store and imap-store), that
> > particular implementation was changed.
> 
> Hmm... OK. 
> 
> I was of the impression that those particular locks in "camel-private.h"
> was of mandated use due to design issues up-source, since everybody
> seemed to use them. Well, I'll think something up myself then.
> 
> > > I am really not qualified at all to hack on some way to extract the
> > > "to-be-public" parts of "camel-private.h". I would bet a really big part
> > > of my right arm that much in Evolution depend on hard to spot properties
> > > of the current implementation.
> > >  
> > > Any suggestions?
> > 
> > Given we are in hard code freeze, not sure; since moving it around
> > requires some macro changes, which i guess are code.
> > 
> > Which locks are you trying ot access?  Do you really need them?
> > Anything else in private is definitely private.
> 
> I am trying to synchronize access to the url in connect() with the store
> lock. The url is really the only thing that I am currently aware of that
> I should protect (right?). The backend server is fully thread-safe so
> only locally shared resources are of any concern to me.
> 
> Thanks,
>   jules
> 
-- 
adfa(evolution-2.4:20087): gtkhtml-WARNING **: cannot find icon:
'stock_insert-url' in gnome