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

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

On 12/16/2009 02:50 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>   
>> Btw, just don't remember well, but Milan did a research of the same,
>> moving from mbox to maildir. Milan do you remember the points to
>> consider? It will be helpful
>>     
> 	Hi,
> I'm sorry, I forgot those, it's quite long time ago. Some of them were
> mentioned in this thread, like:
>  - cannot use ':' in a file name for Windows
>  - cannot create a subfolder of an Inbox
>   

The standard way to nest Maildir folders is such:

Maildir/
   cur/
   new/
   tmp/
   .GNOME/
      cur/
      new/
      tmp/
   .GNOME.Evolution/
      cur/
      new/
      tmp/
   .GNOME.Evolution.Hackers/
      cur/
      new/
      tmp/
   .Xorg/
      cur/
      new/
      tmp/

this will give you the following folder tree:

Inbox
  GNOME
    Evolution
      Hackers
  Xorg

>  - cannot use folder names 'new'/'cur'/'tmp' as those are maildir's
>   

see above.

>  - should choose folder hierarchy model (there is some already, but it
>    has some issue, but I'm not sure what it is)
>   

see above.

>  - recently also some slowness for refresh of large folders (should be
>    partially fixed, but not fully, if I recall correctly)
>   

is this related to readdir() performance?

> I've a feeling there were more, but I forgot them. :(
>
> As others in this thread I would also prefer to use maildir instead of
> creating new provider for this. The maildir would be fixed and changed
> slightly to satisfy evo needs for those above issues, but otherwise
> there's no difference for mbox-per-file, as maildir does pretty the same
> thing (message-per-file).
>   

I agree.

Jeff