also sprach Ben Gamari <bgamari@gmail.com> [2010.02.18.0834 +1300]:
> Excerpts from Mark Anderson's message of Wed Feb 17 14:23:48 -0500
> 2010:
> > But if we have notmuch as a cache of the tags, then don't we
> > already know the tree objects that need updating?  Yes, we would
> > probably need some consistency checks for when things don't work
> > as planned, but in the common case we ought to always know.
> > 
> Cached or not, rewriting would still be an incredibly (e.g.
> prohibitively or close to it) expensive operation for a large
> mailstore.

Why? Well, would involve creating n objects and unlinking n objects
for n tags, but it would be constant in the number of messages, no?

> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these tree objects, and you're
> > suggesting that we don't even tell notmuch about them.
> > 
> I think it would be unwise to teach notmuch anything about the
> underlying store. That would be leaking way too many
> implementation details into

I agree. Also, it would introduce redundancy.

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"twenty-four hour room-service must be one of the
 premiere achievements of modern civilization."
                                          -- special agent dale cooper
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net