Changing default database [WAS: syncing custom IMAP flags]
nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net
Sun Dec 5 17:27:35 GMT 2010
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:03:58PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 12:45 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > We are not ready for a migration even it is good to have this in mind.
> > Also, I don't see the database as the default format for now. We would
> > rather offer an alternative from the current format.
> Wouldn't supporting alternative formats be more work for the maintainers
> and contributors? Also as I understand it the performance gains would
> mean that practically if the implementation is good most would switch
I don't know how things are going to be. What I'm saying is merely about
today. I'm not saying if one or both storage is better to maintain and
why because it's not the time to decide what to support yet.
The best we can do for the SQL storage format NOW is to provide an
experimental support as an _alternative_ format. This is why I won't
merge the SQL topic as is. Have SQL as alternative will help for
experiments and testing giving us the time to evaluate what is the best
for OfflineIMAP in the NEXT step.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project