Getting rid of (most) annotations (Was: Question: Individual annotations vs One large annotation)

[Bernhard Reiter]

Hi Aleksander, 
it is good to read you here! :)

On Thursday 29 September 2011 10:36:19 Aleksander Machniak wrote:
> On 28.09.2011 18:23, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> > There are use cases where XML objects are clearly the better approach,
> > there are also cases where they are vastly inferior. 

> In my opinion the most important thing is that annotations are aware of
> folder rename/delete.

You are right this is an argument against using configuration objects.
I consider the advantages to out weight it, given that we can deal with many 
more IMAP servers when getting rid of annotations, even IMAP that the user 
does not control.

Even so it is a small argument as far as I can see:
A configuration object in a groupware object folder would also move
with renames and deletes. So would a subfolder in case of email folders
that do not contain configuration objects directly.

Given that we use a configuration object in a different folder, the client
would be responsible to also rename the label or identification of the 
configuration setting in the object that relates the settings to the
folder. As folder rename and moves are rare situations I believe this can be 
handled for good.

Best Regards,
Bernhard 

-- 
Send with http://userbase.kde.org/Kontact_Touch from an ideapad running MeeGo