[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hydrant(mailutils's MUA) ideas

From: Alain Magloire
Subject: Re: Hydrant(mailutils's MUA) ideas
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:24:59 -0400 (EDT)

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:17:38AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> > > Can I use the current docs now as solid for awhile?
> > 
> > You can take for granted, on thing, the API will change 8).
> Ah, such is life.  Perhaps it will change to include C++ bindings. =)

8-)  Good try.

> > I got more ideas on Hydrant (can we change name again? 8)
> You don't like the name? =)
> > Language C++
> That was the plan from the beginning.

It was for me, but there was talk about scheme, python etc ..

> > Can I have write permission to the repository since it Hydrant will
> > not be included in mailutils.
> Sure, I'll sort that out tonight.  I've been getting more annoyed with
> mutt recently.


> > Things are a little sketchy and I'm not in to writin docs 8(
> Just create a notes file and jot stuff down.  There's no point in
> writing the docs for this until something's started to be written.


> > I could layout the Object Model.  The same idea as GNUTS(Jakob)
> How is Jakob?  I wonder if he's in Afghanistan.

That would be to early, he's still doing basic training.
Jakob has always strike as a smart sensitive person that does not
fit the profile of the typical GI 8-)

> The extensibiilty is very important to me.  GNU for a long time
> couldn't do anything with encryption because of US export regulations.
> I suspect they will get stronger again, and I want anyone to be able
> to just load a simple mod to get it.  Preferrably without recompiling.

hmm ... that it is something I did not approach at all in mailutils
encryption, PGP, signatures etc ... I suspect it will possible to
added cleanly whithout shaking the foundations too much.

> > but restricted to small set to have it working on X or ncurses
> > with different UI(Pine/Elm LookFeel)
> BTW, has the mailx code been updated to the new API?  It would make a
> nice reference for some things.

The main API/design will not change that much, au contraire.
The real change is underneath, you will probably not notice it.
The change/rewrite main purpose was to expose the internal API
so it could be use without the mailbox_t framework.  Currently
everything is hidden behind mailbox_t,  so for example
if you wish to do smart caching or take advantage of IMAP4
extensions, mailbox_t API does not cover it.

The real(visible) change is in memory management, where it will
be required that you xx_destroy() any object you xx_create ()
or xxx_get_yy (). ex:
  mailbox_t mbox;
  message_t msg;
  mailbox_get_message (mbox, 2, &msg);
  // Do stuff with the message.
  message_destroy (&msg); // <-- message must be destroy after.

> > I should forward this to hydrant mailling list(what's the
> > address again?)
> address@hidden - I've cc:'d this message (I remember the original
> one I sent you was cc:'d there..  I just always use group reply)

Ok thanks.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]