From f42c4cc3a273b8bd3e7dda4be81b5df98bd9e47f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:13:56 +2000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [RFC2 Patch 5/5] lib: iterator API for message properties --- ad/aac34780c41323c5193173e880569f66b19521 | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ad/aac34780c41323c5193173e880569f66b19521 diff --git a/ad/aac34780c41323c5193173e880569f66b19521 b/ad/aac34780c41323c5193173e880569f66b19521 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9edf00a2f --- /dev/null +++ b/ad/aac34780c41323c5193173e880569f66b19521 @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156C26DE0243 + for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:14:10 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.018 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[AWL=-0.018] autolearn=disabled +Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id Tj5EsRK_gCD4 for ; + Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DBA6DE01D0 + for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) + by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48C73F98B; + Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:13:57 -0400 (EDT) +Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id 0808D2022D; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:13:57 -0400 (EDT) +From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor +To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [RFC2 Patch 5/5] lib: iterator API for message properties +In-Reply-To: <87pos1u14p.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> +References: <1463927339-5441-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> + <1464608999-14774-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> + <1464608999-14774-6-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> + <8760tthfuy.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87pos1u14p.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22+16~g87b7bd4 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:13:56 -0400 +Message-ID: <87eg8ht2sb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:14:10 -0000 + +On Tue 2016-05-31 21:52:06 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: +> Thanks for working on this, David! I think this is going to be really +> useful! + +just thinking about this series this morning in a bigger-picture way, i +figure it's worth asking the hard questions now rather than later -- +maybe the answers are obvious, and we just need to write them down. +Please accept these questions in the spirit of supportive inquiry :) +Here goes: + +do we actually need this abstraction? If we're aiming to build specific +new features (the two i'm thinking of are cryptographic-session-keys and +reference-adjustments), couldn't we implement those features explicitly +in xapian with their own special prefix, rather than treating them as a +generic "property"? If we make a generic "property", that seems likely +to be exposed to the user, who can then manipulate them directly +externally from notmuch. + +We already have a bit of an uncomfortable fit with tags and special +flags (encrypted, signed, attachment, etc), where some are expected to +be set and cleared automagically and some are expected to be manipulated +directly by the user. Are we setting ourselves up for more of the same, +or is there a principled way that a user can know which properties it's +kosher for them to set and clear, and which ones they should leave +alone? + +If we add new specific features, we could potentially augment the dump +format explicitly for them, without having the property abstraction. We +already have some explicit features for each message (subject, from, to, +attachment, mimetype, thread id, etc), and most of them are derived from +the message itself, with the hope that it could be re-derived given just +the message body. Is there a distinction between properties that can be +derived from the message body and properties that need to be +additionally derived from some other data? + + --dkg -- 2.26.2