From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/37854 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 15:55:13 +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 1035173535 17788 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:12:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 1242 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 13:55:20 -0000 Original-Received: from dolk.extundo.com (195.42.214.242) by gnus.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 13:55:20 -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 f7HDtNw31515 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:55:24 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:12:28 +0200") Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.104 Original-Lines: 44 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37854 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37854 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >> 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. > > Says who? :-) > > It's definitely a feature, and it's a feature that's shared by the > Agent. Neither the Agent nor the cache cares one whit whether > articles are expired on the server. They'll keep articles around > until the user makes them go away. If the cache also contain persistent articles we'll have a problem when people want to backup the cache directory (to have backups of server-expired articles) but not their agent directory. Unifying the agent and cache is no good then. Admittedly, the articles could still be in separate directories and the agent (or the cache) could look into the cache's (or the agent's) directory before storing/fetching articles, but that's sort of yucky (and also a problem when articles are removed in one of the cache/agent but not the other). I thought it would be nice if we could have ~/News/persistant/ and ~/News/agent/ only. But I'm not sure what the usage pattern is here. Maybe it's enough to separate persistent articles into a directory that people can backup. Hm. I'm assuming that you want a agent mode that synched the agent with what's on the server. If you read mail on a remote server (IMAP) you kind of expect that articles you've deleted from the server (with another client or Gnus instance) are deleted from the agent. Then you could use the cache to keep expired articles around. OTOH you could also use persistent articles for that. If the latter is OK, we could remove the persistentness thing from the cache, which would make it possible to merge the cache and agent directories. Maybe there the persistent article store could be a `expiry-target'. So when cache/agent articles expire from the server, the local copies are run through this process and people that want to keep them around can make them end up in the persistent article store. Err. Or something.