Re: IMAP article move optimization!

[Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>]

"Ted Zlatanov" <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005, yamaoka@jpl.org wrote:
>
>>>>>> In <4nhdjwg1nn.fsf@lifelogs.com> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> 
>>>> Isn't it better to use defvar to gnus-sum-hint-move-is-internal?
>> 
>>> I wanted it to be a local variable without definition or effect
>>> outside its scope.  It's a kludge anyhow, the real solution is to have
>>> nnimap-request-move-article check the source and destination server.
>>> Do you agree?
>> 
>> I see.  Sorry to have written rubbish.
>
> Your point was valid!  If it was rubbish I would have told you I
> disagree :)
>
> I am just asking you and Simon if you agree that
> nnimap-request-move-article should check the servers for equality.  I
> can also put that as a parameter to gnus-request-move-article and have
> it be passed to ALL move commands - nnmaildir, nnml, etc.  Is that
> better?  Do other backends benefit?  I would imagine nnml and nnfolder
> won't, but maybe nnmaildir would benefit.

Would this mean changing the back end interface?  I'm not sure it is
clean enough to warrant that, but I haven't really thought about it.

I haven't really read your patches, but why would n-r-m-a have to
check server equality if g-s-h-m-i-i is non-nil?

Btw, at least internal move appear to work here, although it flashes
something about "internal move" in the echo area.  Moving several
messages appear to be possible to optimize further, though, since it
select the new and old mailbox for each flag set, and the flags could
be set finally.  But let's not think about that more until this
approach has settled down.

Perhaps I'm not of much help here, I wish I had more time to tinker
with this.  Feel free to install anything you think is good.