Re: [evolution-patches] patch for adding GW camel provider

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 13:15 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 09:44, Not Zed wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 17:30 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > Based on Sivaiah's patch sent last week, here's a patch for adding the
> > > Groupwise provider to Camel. It doesn't work for me, since Groupwise
> > > doesn't show up in the account types, but since I am leaving for
> > > vacation today (I'll still check mail tomorrow) and will be back (2nd
> > > January) after Sivaiah's (28th December) come back, I've:
> > > 
> > > * committed the camel/providers/groupwise files. The rest hasn't been
> > > committed, to not include the provider yet in the build, until it works.
> > > 
> > > * debugged the loading of the provider, which needs the imap and smtp
> > > providers loaded first in order to avoid undefined references. I tried
> > > using g_module_open on those providers to have them loaded, but I'm
> > > still getting the same problem.
> > > 
> > > * not committed the groupwise-listener class Sivaiah wrote, so that
> > > needs to be committed and fixed.
> > > 
> > > have a nice holiday and see you next year
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Is the provider just using the imap provider and the smtp transport
> > for implementation,
> >
> yes
> 
> >  what is the groupwise bit for?  Why not just setup
> > an imap account with a matcihng smtp server?
> > 
> we need to create ESource's for calendar, tasks and contacts when you
> create Groupwise accounts, that's the reason for this provider.

So you're going to have the camel provider creating calendar, task and
contact stuff?  Couldn't it just be a different account setup wizard
which implictly creates imap+smtp, and the esources?

> > I don't get it.
> > 
> > Anyway you shouldn't use the imap and smtp symbols directly, just open
> > the imap and smtp CamelProvider[s], and then peek in there for various
> > info.  Otherwise you wont pick up changes to config etc.
> > 
> what do you mean? We should use the g_module to access the providers
> directly?

No, you should definetly not use g_module at all.  You should use
camel_session or camel_provider calls, i can't remember the entry points
off the top of my head.

> > I'm kind of sketchy on whether this approach will even work though.
> >
> what would work then? Providing a camel-groupwise-* version of all
> needed classes, making them just subclass IMAP/SMTP classes?

No you can't really do that either because of they way they are loaded.

I'm still not clear on what you're trying to do.  It sounds like a meta-
account hwich just sets up all the other stuff for you, but you don't
need a custom provider for that.