Re: [Evolution-hackers] [CAMEL] CamelStore create_folder() name constraints...

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 13:20 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 09:34 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:13 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:02 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 16:24 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:13 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> > > > > > Is it guaranteed that no sub-folder with the name "doc" exists in
> > > > > > "Save/Evolution" when the function is invoked?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > 
> > > > no, it is not.
> > > Thanks for pointing that out jeff. kinda had missed the point there.
> > 
> > So sibling folders with identical names might very well exist in any
> > folder? I can not create any such folder with Evolution 2.2.x so it is
> > up to the Camel provider to enforce any such constraint I guess??
> > 
> No. I dont think that creating folders with identical names(as siblings)
> is quite possible.  Firstly since most protocols use the name as the
> identifier for operations on the folder. 
> 
> So in IMAP, the server probably wont let you create it. And it is so in
> Groupwise protocol too.
> 
> Though am not sure how it is with multiple namespaces though.

OK. So the point is that _most_ backend servers wont allow it, but that
_some_ servers might allow it. I should therefore check that no
identically named folder exist and refuse to create an identically named
sibling, as a matter of enforcing some kind of naming consistency in
Evolution regardless of the nature of the backend server. Right?

My concerns are with regard to Exchange. The point is that most, but not
all, message store providers will reject identically named sibling
folders. 

The documentation for the PR_DISPLAY_NAME actually states that sibling
folder must be uniquely named but somewhere (don't remember where) MSDN
only states that _most_, but not all, message store providers require
unique PR_DISPLAY_NAME.

Forcing unique sibling folder names on creation will partly solve the
dilemma, but what should happen when identically named siblings are
found anyway?

Thanks,
  jules