From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: magnus@therning.org (Magnus Therning)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:50:33 +0100
Subject: [sup-talk] on sup
In-Reply-To: <1189029109-sup-7643@south>
References: <1188557360-sup-7369@bryma> <1188573751-sup-6067@south>
	<20070831171234.GD8312@die.therning.org>
	<1188773706-sup-1502@south> <1188977552-sup-60@tatooine>
	<1189029109-sup-7643@south>
Message-ID: <1189060693-sup-3576@tatooine>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Wed Sep 05 22:55:38 +0100 2007:
[..]
> What little Sup currently does in the way of pushing state information
> back into sources, it does through sup-sync-back, which is meant to
> push a batch of state changes back to one or more sources in one go.
> Right now that's restricted to deleting messages marked as deleted or
> spam from mbox sources, but it would be the natural place to push the
> new/read state back as well, at least if you were happy with batch
> operation.

I'm more than happy with batch operations.  I suspect that doing this
outside of sup proper also keeps the main program itself a little
simpler.

I did look at the sup-sync-back tool and noticed that it performs some
mbox operations on its own.  Operations that I feel really belong in the
mbox source class itself.  I feel sup-sync-back would become simpler if
polymorphism was put to use a bit more.  So, do you have any
philosophical problems with a `delete` method being added to the
sources?  (It would probably be followed by a `mark_as_read` in the
future.)

-- 
Magnus Therning                             (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus?therning?org             Jabber: magnus?therning?gmail?com
http://therning.org/magnus

What if I don't want to obey the laws? Do they throw me in jail with
the other bad monads?
     -- Daveman