Re: [Jwma-devel] Question about action when rootfolder doesn't exist

[Dieter W. <di...@wi...>]

Leonard,


> On Monday 31 March 2003 1:24 pm, Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>> I think it would be confusing for the user if this
>> happens "just behind the scenes".
> 
> I think it is fine if subscribing to happens behind the scenes.  For me, it is
> not common sense to subscribe to a folder and a mailbox that is in that
> folder.  That's what led me to this, of course.  I visually filtered out
> everything on the page except the mailboxes I was interested in, and
> subscribed, and then found that the mailboxes didn't show up in the main
> view.
> Of course, I do admit to having the WU IMAP bias in my point of view, in that
> folders can only store folders, not folders and mailboxes.
Folders can contain subfolders and mailboxes, but not messages.
Mailboxes can only contain messages.

Both are folders in the JavaMail API terminology, however, in UW imap they
translate to directories (folders) and files (mailboxes).
 
The actual problem is the same on UW and for other IMAP daemons, namely that
the folder tree is not observed in any way.

> On the other hand, I think that folder-based subscription is a more clean
> looking approach.
I am actually starting to think that too. Probably I give it a shot, so we
can have the comparison. Once tested, is maybe easier to make decisions.

>Still, I think when the user navigates the folder tree and
> clicks on a mailbox to subscribe to, they probably will not click on the
> folder itself, so you'll still have to subscribe to the folder for them,
> won't you, behind the scenes?
No, because the folder tree is not observed in any way. Despite that, it
will be more complicated to establish "automatic supscription mechanisms"
that only make sense when mailboxes exist at all.

Regards,
Dieter