[Tickets #11983] Re: limit synced mailboxes by user preferences

noreply at bugs.horde.org noreply at bugs.horde.org
Mon Jan 21 16:33:05 UTC 2013


BITTE NICHT AUF DIESE NACHRICHT ANTWORTEN. NACHRICHTEN AN DIESE  
E-MAIL-ADRESSE WERDEN NICHT GELESEN.

Ticket-URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/11983
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ticket           | 11983
  Aktualisiert Von | jmozdzen at nde.ag
  Zusammenfassung  | limit synced mailboxes by user preferences
  Warteschlange    | Synchronization
  Version          | Git master
  Typ              | Enhancement
  Status           | Feedback
  Priorität        | 1. Low
  Milestone        |
  Patch            | 1
  Zuständige       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


jmozdzen at nde.ag (2013-01-21 16:33) hat geschrieben:

>> Isn't "Horde_Core_ActiveSync_Driver::_getMailFolders()" part of "the
>> library code" as well? [...]
> The framework libraries are designed to be used as stand alone  
> libraries - outside of a Horde environment. Core is a special  
> library that contains the core libraries needed for a Horde  
> environment.

Thanks, that explains it!

>> Secondly, is there a proper way to detect which folders returned by
>> "_imap->getMailboxes()" are "special" mailboxes? [...]
> This is already done in  
> Horde_Core_ActiveSync_Driver::_getMailFolder(). You just need to  
> check the type property of the returned folder object.

If I had to call _getMailFolder() for every folder returned by  
_imap->getMailboxes(), wouldn't this get too expensive? My list may  
well be longer than 1k entries... each tme creating an instance of  
Horde_ActiveSync_Message_Folder, calling getSpecialMailboxes() etc,  
and then dumping the result in all but a handful of cases.

Purely functionally speaking, the quickest approach would be to call  
_imap->getSpecialMailboxes() only once, re-map to an "folder  
name"-based array, then check every "_imap->getMailboxes()" result  
against that new array. Does that sound acceptable to you?





More information about the bugs mailing list