Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

[Srinivasa Ragavan <sragavan gnome org>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick ohly gmx de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>> > > * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
>> > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536240 .
>> > I hadn't noticed the above, so I guess it's a non-issue for me
>> >
>> > What is the second issue?
>> Sorry missed to mention it here, with maildir we would need to rename
>> files for unread/read flag changes which can be avoided in the later
>> approach.
>
> So you expect renaming a file to be slower than rewriting the whole file
> content? Somehow my gut feeling says that it will be the other way
> around. But I don't have hard data, of course.

I fell it will be slower compared to the other approach. You dont
rewrite the file entirely at all in normal usage. May be when you
expunge folder or export it, the summary data could be updated with
the mail's mbox. But its debatable at some level, I would say.

>
> I definitely won't switch away from maildir as my format of choice
> because it integrates nicely with offlineimap.

Sure, I think users should have that freedom. Camel's local folder
implementation has that built in. This new approach should be the
default for new users, and as option for users to migrate to it for
existing users. If users willingly stay with maildir or
1mbox-per-folder that should also be there.

-Srini