Question: Individual annotations vs One large annotation (conceptual riddle for the interested)

Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) vanmeeuwen at
Tue Oct 11 17:21:14 CEST 2011

On 11.10.2011 14:11, Gunnar Wrobel wrote:
> My impression was that the "one large" annotation can however get
> rather large.

The only reason "large" is being used in the context to refer to one 
annotation, is a misconception created by Georg putting "large" in the 


. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.shared) /vendor/kolab/folder-type
(...response with folder "feature" types...)
. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.[shared|priv]) /vendor/kolab/feature-1
. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.[shared|priv]) /vendor/kolab/feature-2
. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.[shared|priv]) /vendor/kolab/feature-3
. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.[shared|priv]) /vendor/kolab/feature-4

is actually more traffic then

. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.shared) /vendor/kolab/folder-type
(...traditional response...)
. GETANNOTATION Folder (value.[shared|priv]) 
* {'feature-1':<value>, 'feature-2':<value>, 'feature-3':<value>, 

The former also requires more storage then the latter.

> In addition it needs to be read and written very often.
> I don't see why that should not result in problems. Not *huge*
> problems - but I consider it more problematic than using several
> distinct annotations.

Note that some features, not so many, are perhaps better suitable for 
configuration through Kolab XML objects. Nobody is arguing *all* 
configuration should go into one folder annotation, nor separate folder 

Nobody so far has recognized the fact using one annotation for 
configuration to be shared across application isn't mutually exclusive 
with, in addition to said one annotation, additional annotations of 
which perhaps only one application may be compatible.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at
t: +44 144 340 9500
m: +44 74 2516 3817

pgp: 9342 BF08

More information about the format mailing list