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

["Sankar P" <psankar novell com>]

>>> On 12/16/2009 at 01:16 AM, in message
<1260906365 615 858 camel linux-e1q4 site>, Chenthill <pchenthill novell com>
wrote: 
> Hi fellow hackers!!
>     I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
> in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
> 'Folder and summary mismatch error'(old one -
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213072). As a matter of fact
> we have been working as a team to get the blockers down. I have not been
> able to reproduce the issue or yet find the exact problematic area.
> 
> 	The mismatch in the frompos index in the folder summary may be caused
> by either a threading issue or a crash while storing the indexes. I am
> still investigating it to find the real cause.
> 
> 	Looking at other issues such as, 
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=522433 - 'Fails opening mbox
>> 2GB', just got a thought if we could solve both the issues by,
> 
> Approach #1,
> migrating local storage from mbox to maildir format. With maildir I have
> heard about two issues,
> 
> * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536240 .
> 
> Approach #2,
> Migrate from a single mbox file per folder to mbox per email. Srini
> mentioned an advantage that this would avoid the file renames that
> maildir does. I think this is much like how other remote providers in
> evo store the email.
> 
> I thought of bring this in this list to gather more opinions to choose
> the right one. The approach #2 seems a better one as we are choosing a
> way for storing the messages internally in evo. Are we missing to see
> anything while we choose the second one ? 
> 
> One advantage which I see with #1 is that its a standard way.
> 
> Thanks, Chenthill.
> 

Last I checked, maildir is known to have problems in windows.  

If so, Is Evo-on-Win a priority, etc. ? 

The mail storage part used by the GroupWise provider is same as what you suggest (afaics)
IIRC, I was told that it was derived from some cyrus storage style. 

Thanks.




--
Sankar 
http://psankar.blogspot.com