<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: For 1.5.9: attachment counting for index display



*bump*

Brendan, and / or Thomas,

Can you make a judgement about this patch?  I decided to bump this
thread because, as I've noted, nobody has responded to David's
message.  Furthermore, it's the only patch I use that has not been
applied to CVS..  

Most mailers have this functionality, e.g. through the display of a
paper clip or something like that.  I would *really* find this
useful.

Thinking about it some more:  would it make sense to alter this patch
somewhat, and to:

- not automatically parse the tree for Maildir and IMAP mailfolders,
  but display a "?" (or something like that, or nothing at all)
  instead?
  
- cache the attachment information for these types of folders?

Please comment..

René


* David Champion <dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [24-02-2005 18:21]:

> http://home.uchicago.edu/~dgc/sw/mutt/patch-1.5.8.dgc.attach.5                
> 
> Thomas, I know you've previously stated that you won't include this
> patch, citing (a) concerns about the performance hit to the "extra"
> MIME tree parse, and (b) memory concumption with the parsed data
> accumulation. Since a MIME tree parse is crucial to the feature, I
> can't really argue with that. However, it performs fine to me, and the
> tree parse doesn't occur if you're not using the feature. (That is,
> if you have no %V elements in $index_format.) So if there's any harm
> done, it's only to people who expressly sign up for it. Moreover, the
> cached tree-parsing data is tossed when this patch no longer needs it,
> so memory usage remains tame. This impedes performance of the ~V search
> function and of page display when you use %V, but it saves the memory.
> 
> I've been asked to try again, though -- see another thread -- so please
> review this for consideration.
> 
> This patch has been stable (at version 5) since March 14, 2002, for
> mutt-1.3.28. All updates since then have just been refreshes for new
> mutt releases, with no changes to the implementation itself. I have no
> firm plans to make significant changes to it, unless doing so puts it
> closer to CVS.
> 
> I've considered modifying mutt's envelope structure to retain the number
> of attachments, so that I can still be conservative about memory (see
> above) while not damaging performance. Then a MIME parse would only be
> needed (a) for new messages, or (b) when the parameters of attachment
> counting change. If that makes it more appealing for CVS by addressing
> more performance concerns, I'll do it.
> 
> -- 
>  -D.    dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx                                  NSIT::ENSS
>  "So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill...
>   and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water
>   mark -- the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." -HST

-- 
René Clerc                      - (rene@xxxxxxxx) - PGP: 0x9ACE0AC7

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Attachment: pgphWPqVMg35E.pgp
Description: PGP signature