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 E6D5F431FAF for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:35:14 -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 HNF8Y9zxu782 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-7.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.36]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4737E431FAE for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:35:14 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 12074424-b7fbe6d000003b02-22-50b3a851d8d7 Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id AD.24.15106.158A3B05; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id qAQHZCsH004081; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:13 -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 qAQHZ8Zx000062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Td2aK-0001T5-BF; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:08 -0500 From: Austin Clements To: Tomi Ollila Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] API for iterating over all messages in a thread Message-ID: <20121126173508.GQ4562@mit.edu> References: <1353819427-13182-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu> <87ehjhkb3a.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <20121125212059.GN4562@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hRV1g1csTnAoPOTmMXquTwW12/OZLZ4 s3IeqwOzx85Zd9k9Dn9dyOLxbNUt5gDmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M/+u2sxV8kqr4f+c3YwPj R5EuRk4OCQETiQsNn5ghbDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICexjlDh7qZ8VwtnAKHHl4lFGCOcik8Slw0uZ IZwljBL9vw4xgfSzCKhK9KyZwwpiswloSGzbv5wRxBYRUJF40LYeLM4s4Cox48IusHphAQ+J B79/gtm8AtoSVz5vZoIYuoxRovfLFFaIhKDEyZlPWCCatSRu/HsJVMQBZEtLLP/HARLmFDCQ mHv1BTuILQq0a8rJbWwTGIVmIemehaR7FkL3AkbmVYyyKblVurmJmTnFqcm6xcmJeXmpRbrm ermZJXqpKaWbGEHBzu6isoOx+ZDSIUYBDkYlHt4DSzYHCLEmlhVX5h5ilORgUhLl3TMXKMSX lJ9SmZFYnBFfVJqTWnyIUYKDWUmE93sjUI43JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM57PeWmv5BAemJJanZq akFqEUxWhoNDSYLXdTlQo2BRanpqRVpmTglCmomDE2Q4D9BwX5Aa3uKCxNzizHSI/ClGRSlx XneQhABIIqM0D64XloxeMYoDvSLMmwVSxQNMZHDdr4AGMwENTr6+EWRwSSJCSqqBsY43JPma EnfadT2xikyR2QfsJ6+IiHjlGhl/9NKPeNcZ84TsW5Z/jSxjDAut6XN4fPzXX0U/8SVvNGIm 7rt5Lax2t32e0O7jnGeTlV6dufziQ5z0QWPu+WxCVtdiTvzt91iaeo5v75XJqqvLm6bJ7bBm /3ekV3re/b1PP7BZayu87JZhZ5rDrMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAIvw24QhAwAA 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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:35:15 -0000 Quoth Tomi Ollila on Nov 26 at 7:19 pm: > On Sun, Nov 25 2012, Austin Clements wrote: > > > 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.) > > The code looks good to me. > > I'm interested to see the extensible interface for returning desired > list in desired sort order :) I'll give this a shot (probably later today) and people can see what they think. > Tomi > > > > >> 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.