From cyrus-devel  Tue Nov 17 12:37:47 2009
From: Martin Konold <martin.konold () erfrakon ! de>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:37:47 +0000
To: cyrus-devel
Subject: Re: ANNOTATEMORE => METADATA and rfc 5464
Message-Id: <200911171337.47671.martin.konold () erfrakon ! de>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=cyrus-devel&m=125846150701076

On Tuesday 17 November 2009 13:28:49 Bron Gondwana wrote:

Hi,

> to everything were changed and the commands were renamed.  It would
> be great to be complient, and there is software out there like Kolab
> which would benefit from it.
> 
> Also, the database format is pretty nasty - complete with nulls
> embedded in keys and other fun stuff (like platform dependent type
> lengths codified in the format, ick)
> 
> So I'm thinking: create a new metadata.db, require a conversion on upgrade
> from annotations.db.  I had a look, and none of our servers had ANY
> annotations until I added a /comment to my INBOX for testing.
> 
> Does anybody out there use annotations much?  Does anybody know any code
> that would be broken by changing the way annotations are done?

Yes, Kolab makes heavy/critical use of annotations. Provided there is a 
suitable upgrade path I am fully in favour of moving towards rfc 5464.

Yours,
-- martin