From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <20100115001600.GD25209@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
References: <20100114084713.GA22273@harikalardiyari>
	<87eilse1hg.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<20100115001600.GD25209@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:45:29 -0800
Message-ID: <87vdf3cd1y.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Thoughts on notmuch and Lua
Precedence: list

--=-=-=

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:16:00 +1300, martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> wrote:
> Lua for hooks has the advantage that the hooks can be executed in
> the context of manipulateable objects. On the other hand, hooks in
> the style of run-parts directories are more flexible and accessible,
> and could always be invoked as filters for the manipulateable data.

Good point.

One thing that notmuch has in its favor already is that there's a
command-line interface that provides all of the interesting
functionality. So it's already a fairly trivial matter to "hook" things
like "notmuch new" by writing a script in whatever language you prefer
to invoke things like "notmuch search" and "notmuch tag".

And that's what I'm doing already, (with a shell script), to tag
newly-arrived messages.

The only part that's really missing here is a directory where scripts
could be dropped in and get automatically invoked.

What do you think, Ali? Would an approach like that satisfy the things
you had in mind for hooks?

-Carl

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLUNPp6JDdNq8qSWgRAhpYAJwLYVAATuItGWTlCtEzStMzj2xWqQCaA+2a
8NXuz3sh9y1zBxBfGqPkrlg=
=f0kH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--