Question: Individual annotations vs One large annotation (conceptual riddle for the interested)
bernhard at intevation.de
Wed Oct 5 11:24:24 CEST 2011
Am Sunday, 2. October 2011 18:55:24 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab
> > I could read out some possible technical advantages for using one large
> > one, but to me they are not the deciding factor. Many problems will have
> > to be solved for one annotation and this also means they can be solved
> > for many annotations as well.
> I've already stated for individual annotations all clients require the list
> of full paths of the annotations in order to be able to determine whether
> or not there could be any problem. The problem stated does *not* exist with
> using one annotation, and does exist with multiple annotations - to argue
> the same problems need to be resolved in each proposed solution is therefor
You could make one known annotation to contain the list of dynamic
annotations if this is the issue. On the other hand, if a client wants
to understand the contents of a configuration option, it would know the
designated annotation for it as well.
> > ps.: Just asking myself two questions again: Is there a notification
> > system for changed annotations in the IMAP protocol and implemented in
> > Cyrus IMAPD and Dovecot? Is annotation length still limited and does not
> > count towards the quota?
> Yes, there is a notification system, annotation size is not limited, and it
> does count towards the quota.
Ah, good. It's been a while since I've looked at part of this from the
Managing Director + Owner: www.Intevation.net <- A Free Software Company
Kolabsys.com: Board Member FSFE.org: Founding GA Member
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the format