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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Serial number-related trouble, again
From:       Don Sanders <sanders () kde ! org>
Date:       2005-05-30 1:17:12
Message-ID: 200505301117.13092.sanders () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 28 May 2005 00:32, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Friday 27 May 2005 03:25, Don Sanders wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 May 2005 23:56, David Faure wrote:
> > > This makes the MessageProperty forget that this message is
> > > complete. If it's allowed to make copies of messages,
> >
> > You can't have two different messages (an original and a copy)
> > with different serial numbers. A serial number relates to a
> > unique message in a particular folder at a particular offset
> > within the index.
>
> Correct. But this means that a message in memory can never have a
> serial number. The serial number always refers to the message in
> the folder, i.e. on disk or on the IMAP server.
>
> > > then deleting
> > > a copy shouldn't make kmail forget about the properties
> > > associated with its serial number - there can be other copies
> > > of the KMMessage/KMMsgBase which needs them!
> >
> > If the copy is in a folder then it should have its own unique
> > serial number. If the copy is not in any folder, then it exists
> > only in memory and should not have a serial number.
>
> Well, if a message is show in the main window and in the separate
> window then it's both times the same message. It's just two
> different representations of the message (cf. model-view). The
> serial number connects the views (and all actions which work on
> messages) with the message in the folder.
>
> Of course, this leads to problems if a message which is shown in
> the separate reader window is deleted by the user. There are two
> ways KMail could react:
> a) Automatically close the separate reader window which shows the
> deleted message.
> b) Keep everything working as if the message wouldn't have been
> deleted.
>
> ad a) I guess we all agree that this option sucks and thus is not
> the way to go.
>
> ad b) The problem with this is that we will have to make all
> actions work on serial number _and_ on KMMessage objects. Obviously
> that does also suck. So currently the only solution I see is as
> follows: - All actions work exclusively on serial numbers.
> - Normally all message views reference the same serial
> number/physical message.
> - If a message is deleted in one view while it's still referenced
> in another view (well, actually only if it's still referenced in a
> separate message window) then we have to put a temporary
> (complete?)

(complete, yes I concur).

> copy of the message somewhere (in a local folder on 
> disk? just in memory?)

(local folder on disk is best/required I think. We seem to
need some kind of working folder to put messages in).

> and assign it a new serial number. Or in 
> fact we could simply keep the serial number.

Yes if it's a move we could even keep the serial number.
Maybe that would keep things quite simple.

> An alternative to putting a temporary copy into some other folder
> would be to delay the deletion of the message until the message is
> no longer needed. Obviously this requires reference counting of the
> serial numbers.

I like the first alternative better.

Don Sanders.
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]