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

[Parthasarathi Susarla <sparthasarathi novell com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:29 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:40 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:05 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> > > 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. 
> 
> 
> No, but we can do almost as good by appending a ' ' to the name of the
> first identically named sibling and '  ' the next and so forth. I am
> pondering how to do this the best.
> 
> I do not think that forcibly changing the name on the remote server will
> be any good, so I think that a local mapping agent must be used.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> Case A - N identically named folders/objects are found on the remote
> server:
> 
>     A map of display names are created whereby the remote names used to
> construct a one-to-one "local name" <==> "remote UUID" mapping. 
> The local names are constructed from the remote names by appending
> 1..(N-1) ' ' characters to the remote names.
> 
> Case B - An Evolution user wants to create an object with a name that is
> identical to an existing sibling:
> 
>    We deny the request.
> 
> Case A above can get complicated, but I don't see how we can do
> otherwise if we want to cover all use cases.
> 
> Thoughts?

We should deny, unless the protocol tells what to do.

Cheers,
partha