From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/37841 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Simon Josefsson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Cache/Agent unification Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:27:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <2nae1d84cb.fsf@piglet.jia.vnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035173525 17715 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:12:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 220 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 12:27:18 -0000 Original-Received: from dolk.extundo.com (195.42.214.242) by gnus.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 12:27:18 -0000 Original-Received: from barbar.josefsson.org (slipsten.extundo.com [195.42.214.241]) (authenticated) by dolk.extundo.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f7HCRLw30959 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:27:21 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:27:51 +0200") Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.104 Original-Lines: 26 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37841 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37841 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >>> The idea sounds good to me. But I'd like to think Agent as the >>> second level cache instead of Agent/Cache unification. Cache and >>> Agent is for different purposes. >> >> Which different purposes? > > The cache already conflates two separate functions -- persistent > articles and, er, the cache. I think that Simon is right in that the > second of these functions should be conflated with the Agent instead. Ah, formulated like that, it is much clearer. Keeping persistant articles in the ~/News/cache/ directory and moving cached articles into ~/News/agent/ seems like a good approach. Christoph, would you be happy with that? (I belive you took backups of your cache but not the agent, presumably because you use the persistant article feature of the cache and not the cache itself?) Hm. Maybe there still is a gap though -- cached articles (not persistant ones) are kept around (and shown in summary buffers) even when they have expired on the server, if `gnus-cache-remove-articles' is nil (or something). But this is probably a bug. A cache should cache things, not change semantics. Those who rely on that behaviour could use persistant articles instead, I think.