Re: nnimap usage model

[Kevin Greiner <kgreiner@xpediantsolutions.com>]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> So, is anyone using the combination of gnus-agent being t but
>> gnus-agent-cache being nil?
>>
>> I think now I agree with your suggestion of just removing the
>> variable gnus-agent-cache.
>
> Making it possible to revert to old behaviour is IMHO always good, but
> if it means alot of work maybe it can be removed...  the GNUS-NEWS
> entry should be changed though:
>
> ,----
> | ** Gnus reads the NOV and articles in the Agent if plugged.
> |
> | If one reads an article while plugged, and the article already exists
> | in the Agent, it won't get downloaded once more.  (setq
> | gnus-agent-cache nil) reverts to the old behavior.
> `----
>
> OTOH, it doesn't sound like it would generate much work to call the
> backend directly instead of looking at the cache directory of
> gnus-agent-cache is null?

If we did that, then setting gnus-agent-cache to null is identical to
setting gnus-agent to null.

As I read it, setting gnus-agent-cache to null will result in the
agent always fetching headers and articles from the server that it
then stores locally.

Kai had a good point concerning performance. My thoughts were that
this was a useful setting back when the agent wasn't that reliable.
If you don't trust the agent, you might be willing to let it cache
articles.  However, you would not want to depend on those cached
articles when the server was available.

What I need to do is stop talking and start testing.

Kevin