[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Data loss: kmail2 must not use existing [Folder-xy]
From:       "Georg C. F. Greve" <greve () kolabsys ! com>
Date:       2011-12-13 9:43:32
Message-ID: 3100355.efKAxkoMeU () katana ! lair
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 13 December 2011 10.32:55 Sven Burmeister wrote:
> Use only IDs to communicate with clients that are "guaranteed" to be uniq=
ue =

> for akonadi and the client, i.e. rely on chance of re-occurrence like
> message-IDs.

As far as I understood the necessity for Akonadi IDs, the idea was that som=
e =

resources do not have unique ids themselves. =


I am not sure this is ever true for email, though.

IMAP: Unique IDs on the server
MAILDIR: Unique path names on disk
MBOX: Unique path name + Message ID

Not sure that other resources don't have some form of ID -- after all, how =

does that data storage/provide differentiate its own records otherwise?

So I've been wondering why we aren't using those "per resource unique ids" =
in =

combination with a resource identifier to provide robust unique IDs that ar=
e in =

fact robust also against a database reset/removal.

Or am I missing something vital (which is entirely possible)?

Best regards,
Georg


-- =

Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Z=FCrich, Switzerland

e: greve@kolabsys.com
t: +41 78 904 43 33
w: http://kolabsys.com

pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve
_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]