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

List:       kopete-devel
Subject:    Re: [Kopete-devel] [Bug 73830] Be able to add sub groups to groups
From:       Martijn Klingens <klingens () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-01-31 15:54:11
Message-ID: 200401311654.11801.klingens () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 31 January 2004 16:05, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> So?
>
> What does that have to do with a group having a list of it's child
> contacts?

Duplication of data? Just like when normalizing a database you don't want 
redundant data. So _either_ you have a list of all contacts and the groups in 
which they are, _or_ you have a list of all groups and all contacts in there, 
but not both.

Of course you can generate the one list of the other and vice versa, but 
generating on the fly is more expensive. Therefore you want to ensure that 
you generate the _UN_common case.

> > Perhaps better would be to make KopeteContact refcounted, so a contact in
> > multiple groups is the same contact (shares the same d pointer)
>
> What????
>
> Why wouldn't the contact in both groups *be* the same contact? They're
> not paswed around by value.

Because doing that results in dangerous API? The risk of double deletion and 
other unsafe practices becomes too big.

> > Anyway, you're flattening by stuffing everything in one group rather than
> > creating a 'flattened' group for each subgroup.
>
> Yess... if your protocol doesn't support subgroups then you want one
> flattened group, you don't want a group with flattened subgroups.

_YOU_ don't want that. I definitely _DO_, or I wouldn't be mentioning it.

If I have a group KDE and a group KDE/Kopete I want my serverside list to have 
two groups as well, not one huge group containing everyone from those groups 
combined. Not to mention that if you combine the users you surely can't 
properly sync contact lists between locations.

> you're going on about problems that and difficulties that don't exist.

Why don't they exist? So far you have just ignored my concerns and a broad 
claim 'that they don't exist' isn't going to make the matter anything less. 
Do you have any explanations regarding this claim?

> I am just going to make a patch that implements this Kopete-wide and
> post it. 

Fair enough. But be prepared that I (and at least also Penna for that matter) 
honestly don't like this idea at all, so I doubt it will go in.

-- 
Martijn
_______________________________________________
Kopete-devel mailing list
Kopete-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]