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

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 15:31 +0530, Parthasarathi Susarla wrote:
> > 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.

The problem is that MAPI doesn't enforcing this. It is up to the message
store provider. MSDN says:

##### MSDN ######
IMAPIFolder::CreateFolder().
Most message store providers require the name of the new folder to be
unique with respect to the names of its sibling folders. Be able to
handle the MAPI_E_COLLISION error value, which is returned if this rule
is not followed. 
##### MSDN ######

So, although identically named siblings should not exist, some message
stores do not follow that rule. It is unclear from MSDN whether MAPI
actually enforces this above the message store layer but whether it does
or not, some other tool might create those nasty identical twins anyway.

Best regards,
  jules