Re: gnus-registry flags API

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:56:36 -0600 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> Sure, but keep in mind the registry in its current form gets big
TZ> quickly.  It should probably be compressed, if not trimmed.  If it's
TZ> trimmed then you only have the latest anyhow (in my experience 50,000
TZ> entries cover 99% of my needs); if we decide to compress it that's extra
TZ> work but probably good for the user's disk space.
...
TZ> Well, we get to two questions:

TZ> 1) do we push the registry on everyone?  If yes, then we should do 

TZ> (when (file-exists-p gnus-registry-cache-file)
TZ>    (gnus-registry-initialize))

TZ> in gnus.el.  If not...

TZ> 2) when we notify the user, we should offer to turn
TZ> gnus-registry-enabled on, and in gnus.el we'll have

TZ> (when gnus-registry-enabled 
TZ>    (gnus-registry-initialize))

TZ> Either approach is OK with me.  It really depends on how much everyone
TZ> likes the registry and wants it on by default.  IMO (2) is the better
TZ> approach but complicates the code since we have to do the enabled check
TZ> everywhere we offer user functionality.
...
TZ> It will match an unanchored regular expression, so "^nntp" should do
TZ> it.  We could add a gnus-registry-ignored-methods, which by default is
TZ> ("nntp" "nnrss" "nndraft" "nnil") or something similar, and then match
TZ> on "^method:".  Let me know which one you like better, I have no
TZ> preference.

Any opinions on the three items above?

Labels are done, but I've called them 'marks' consistently.  Before I
had flags, labels, and marks.  It was not nice.  The label is always
just a symbol.

The mark functionality in gnus-registry.el uses process/prefix
correctly, I think.

gnus-registry-trim will always keep articles with marks and any other
extra symbols you put in gnus-registry-extra-entries-precious.

Please test and review if you have a chance.

Thanks
Ted