From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9E0431FAE for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:21:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hu43GlfC+j7Y for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-2.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.13]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35323431FAF for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:21:04 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 1209190d-b7f906d0000008de-63-50b28bbe7902 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 6B.68.02270.EBB82B05; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id qAPLL2KF012406; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:21:02 -0500 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id qAPLL05v001016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TcjdL-0004HO-Sj; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:20:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:20:59 -0500 From: Austin Clements To: Mark Walters Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] API for iterating over all messages in a thread Message-ID: <20121125212059.GN4562@mit.edu> References: <1353819427-13182-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu> <87ehjhkb3a.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ehjhkb3a.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hTV1t3fvSnA4PM+RovVc3ksrt+cyezA 5LFz1l12j2erbjEHMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZWxf84G54KFYxfstdxgbGL8KdjFyckgImEj8 fDaDFcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAPkaJN8962CGcDYwS/xesZIRwLjJJfJn0D8pZwiix9MQHFpB+ FgFVicc7HjOB2GwCGhLb9i9nBLFFBHQkbh9awA5iMwtIS3z73QxWIyzgIfHg908wm1dAW2Jp 92+wGiGBOIk1X9tZIOKCEidnPmGB6NWSuPHvJVA9B9ic5f84QMKcQKvabkwFWyUqoCIx5eQ2 tgmMQrOQdM9C0j0LoXsBI/MqRtmU3Crd3MTMnOLUZN3i5MS8vNQiXSO93MwSvdSU0k2M4LCW 5N3B+O6g0iFGAQ5GJR7eG4kbA4RYE8uKK3MPMUpyMCmJ8ja3bgoQ4kvKT6nMSCzOiC8qzUkt PsQowcGsJMI7kQkox5uSWFmVWpQPk5LmYFES572SctNfSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJivDwaEkwWvf BdQoWJSanlqRlplTgpBm4uAEGc4DNHxHJ8jw4oLE3OLMdIj8KUZFKXFeNZBmAZBERmkeXC8s 7bxiFAd6RZiXEaSKB5iy4LpfAQ1mAhqcfH0jyOCSRISUVANj8H5rc/0I+ULHtkWbtOwO2C5i Zt+hvsLoEotC4FXrz38+TFFuq3m+9uc+1Zwn/6MlNscFuhov3/zx8vaCw0q7f0dMiD06YcWa 7NM2d5+J/Y9e7O3wdWqbyVktwzM12e2z2zIk9mp9cjrNaX6NMWmetpln2J5zByuYnurbe5oa 3jbojHOSN7ZUYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA4EabchYDAAA= Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:21:05 -0000 Quoth Mark Walters on Nov 25 at 2:31 pm: > > Hi > > This series looks good to me (I have not reviewed the two bindings > patches). Patch 2 looks like it makes things much easier to follow than > the current code (if I understood the current pointer stuff it > constructs the top-level list by doing pointer stuff to remove all > messages which are replies from the complete message list). Indeed, the > diff is more complicated than the new code! > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Austin Clements wrote: > > This series adds a library API for iterating over all messages in a > > thread in sorted order. This is easy for the library to provide and > > difficult to obtain from the current API. Plus, if you don't count > > the code added to the bindings, this series is actually a net > > decrease of 4 lines of code because of simplifications it enables. > > > > Do we want the API to do more? Currently it's very minimal, but I can > > imagine two ways it could be generalized. It could take an argument > > to indicate which message list to return, which could be all messages, > > matched messages, top-level messages, or maybe even unmatched messages > > (possibly all in terms of message flags). It could also take an > > argument indicating the desired sort order. Currently, the caller can > > use existing message flag APIs to distinguish matched and unmatched > > messages and there's a separate function for the top-level messages. > > However, if the API could do all of these things, it would subsume > > various other API functions, such as notmuch_thread_get_*_date. > > I don't know if this is the right API. For the matched message etc I > think using the existing message flag APIs is simple enough. I am not > sure about sort orders though: that looks like it would be much easier > for the caller to have the correct sort by I am not sure what users > would need it. For sort order, I would be inclined to simply construct the reverse list the first time a caller asks for it. Theoretically the caller could do this just as easily as the library, except that we don't expose the list routines. If I do add sort order, I would also want to add some control over which list is returned, since it would be asymmetric to be able to request all messages in either order, but top-level messages only in oldest-first. I think this would be pretty simple, and would give us a reasonably general-purpose and extensible API. (It would also solve the naming conundrum I mentioned below in my original email.) > Best wishes > > Mark > > > > > > > > Also, is this the right name for the new API? In particular, if we do > > later want to add a function that returns, say, the list of matched > > messages, we'll have a convention collision with > > notmuch_thread_get_matched_messages, which returns only a count.