paul wrote:
On 2012-06-26 11:45 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
anyway: i think i still prefer the idea that the content cache
directories be kept in the message tree. but i also understand why
one might want them separate. if the idea is that the message tree
and the cache tree are roughly isomorphic, i'll bet that could be made
a per-user choice, as long as the content directories were really
named "53.mime/" and not simply "53/" -- i.e., the messages and the
mime-dirs could either live in the same tree or not, since they use
different parts of the namespace. (but clients certainly would need
to be careful not to assume one model or the other.)
lots of code (here i'm thinking of uw-imap) makes the assumption that if
there's a directory then it's a folder. such names need not be
all-numeric or semi-numeric. you'd have to preface the name with a dot
('.') to prevent it from opendir()'ing or even chdir()'ing. i see this
as an unfortunate and unnecessary burden on code whose assumptions have
been valid for a long time.
ah, good point. i never ever use nested folders, and so didn't even
consider that issue. and i also wasn't considering non-nmh clients
of the tree.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 64.6 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers