[haiku-development] Re: [GSoC proposal] IMAP FS - A few queries
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:49:25 +0200
On 2011-04-20 at 23:27:39 [+0200], Donn Cave <donn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoth "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>,
> [... re deletion ...]
> > I was hoping the recent discussion clarified things.
>
> I am afraid no amount of discussion is going to clarify things, and
> the only way to move ahead is to defer implementation of a Trash feature.
> That's the place where no one seems to be able to agree - it's surprising
> how many ways there are to see this working, and how we all seem to be
> able to defend a different one.
Well, with respect to the FS interface side, there's really nothing to
disagree about. FSs are supposed to behave in a certain way and an IMAP FS
should as well.
> I could go on about why I don't think
> your version will work so well, and what I'd like to see different in
> the proposal, but we've been over it all a couple times already.
In case there have been misunderstanding what "my version" is. Essentially
it is that the trash feature must be user-configurable, so that it works
with all server semantics. I have explained how my GMX account works and
that it exactly corresponds to how Haiku's trash behaves. So that should be
trivial to implement and I expect that to be an option I can set. There
should be another option to disabled the trash feature completely (or have
it work only locally). And it should certainly be investigated what needs
to be done to have the trash feature work smoothly with GMail.
> It
> will all work fine without a Trash folder, as long as users unmount
> once in a while.
It will work without a trash feature. I don't understand what that has to
do with unmounting, though.
> [... re offline ...]
>
> I agree a queue is problematic. Probably another case where it would
> be better not to support this right now - could IMAP operations while
> offline just fail? Anything else would take a lot of experience
> with IMAP to get right.
I don't see the point of the whole undertaking, if it doesn't work offline.
That would be worse than what we have now.
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
