Re: mail-sources backend specific?

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> I still think the situation could be greatly improved by moving the
>> work of nnmail-get-new-mail out of backends and into Gnus proper.  It
>> would be a lot of work, but it could be done with minimal changes to
>> existing configurations while enabling all the flexibility we'd like.
>
> That seems to be the clean design.  I think Lars didn't do that for
> efficiency reasons.
>
> How does the current implementation arrange for things to be faster,
> and could we adapt it for the clean design?

The current implementation gets its efficiency by passing a list of
groups to the backend function.  The backend then adds the article to
all of those groups; this can use hard linking or any other speedups
appropriate for the backend in question.

But we can simply make a variant of nnchoke-request-accept-article
that takes a list of groups, and get the same speedup.  There's no
need for a separate function nnchoke-active-number to generate the
next article number first; that's already done in
nnchoke-request-accept-article, and could be done similarly in the
multi-group variant.  There's no need for nnchoke-request-scan to be
responsible for looking at mail-sources and nnmail-split-fancy; that
can be done by Gnus, just before or after calling
nnchoke-request-scan.


paul