2004-08-19T16:16:13 Thomas Glanzmann: > rm /tmp/sithglan-hcache __OH__ --- sound of me smacking my head, hard, a meaty thud. Not to worry, I wasn't using it anyway. Of course. I had firmly lodged in my brain that I'd never, ever, under any circumstances have to wait for ages to open a humongous maildir ever again. What a silly bunt I am:-). Seriously, though, I think what you have implemented right now is precisely right, it works well, it's robustly correct, and the right-feeling fix, should the cache get sufficiently larded up with stale stuff, is to delete the cache, rather than write a cleaner. The cleaner wouldn't be widely used, so over time it'd be a maintenance problem --- it has to have an intimately correct knowlege of the precise database format, which I've just realized is not _quite_ as trivial as I'd at first assumed:-). > But, if you like to, I could of course write a maildir-header > cache wiper, too. No, unless there's some fiendishly clever way of somehow integrating it right into mutt and ensuring that everybody who uses the cache at all runs the cleaner, let's not go there at all; it'll be a recurring problem when it falls out of perfect alignment with the real database interaction code. Thanks once again, -Bennett
Attachment:
pgpkxLR8LpA9c.pgp
Description: PGP signature