Re: [Evolution-hackers] [CAMEL] CamelStore create_folder() name constraints...
- From: Parthasarathi Susarla <sparthasarathi novell com>
- To: Jules Colding <colding omesc com>
- Cc: Evolution Hackers <evolution-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] [CAMEL] CamelStore create_folder() name constraints...
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:40:44 +0530
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:05 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> 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
Am really not sure how Exchange works. Have to look it up.
> 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?
If indeed a protocol(server) allows you to have identically named
siblings, then the matter of concern would be how we would store it
locally. The filesystem would obviously not allow us to have identical
siblings. So i think we inherently are(although its not very obvious)
forcing unique sibling folder names.
] [Thread Prev