[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:       Volker Krause <vkrause () kde ! org>
Date:       2011-12-16 8:13:46
Message-ID: 1571602.3uN61ndSud () vkpc9
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 15 December 2011 22:38:10 Sven Burmeister wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2011, 21:45:46 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > We don't need GUIDs for every item. We only need them for folders.
> > Creating GUIDs for folders will hardly result in a performance problem
> > and changing the format of an id shouldn't require massive code changes
> > either. Of course, it might require an upgrade mechanism.
> > 
> > The usage of GUIDs is the only sensible solution for external
> > references.
> 
> I am no expert regarding akonadi. So I'm not sure this covers all kinds of
> resources and interaction with clients. But for email it sounds sensible to
> me since there is no email without folder.
> 
> If I understood Volker correctly introducing the communication of a unique
> id to identify the database needs a lot of code changes. 

Adding just that identifier is trivial, using it all over the place (like 
proposed as a config file/key prefix for example) is the part I'm not happy 
with.

> Your proposal not.

At least not as long as it fits into 64bit (or we are allowed to break SC).

Randomizing collection ids should also have little impact on the performance, 
bulk operations on collections are far less common, and there's usually a lot 
less of them than we have items.

regards
Volker
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
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]