Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> Dan Mosedale wrote:
> >
> > Is that what's actually implemented in Mozilla? A certain amount of
> > Mozilla's mail-news code descended from the Netscape 4.x code base, so
> > I wonder if this isn't still the 4.x algorithm rather than the
> > algorithm described on that page. It might be worthwhile to figure
> > that out, and if it is still the 4.x algorithm, file a bug in Bugzilla
> > to get it changed...
>
> *boggle*
>
> From the original roadmap at
> http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/roadmap-26-Oct-1998.html:
>
> "It has been over five months since I posted to mozilla.general my
> then-current thoughts on the Mozilla browser development schedule. That
> schedule listed only one large feature, mail/news integration, and put
> off enumerating the rest until "later, [...] barring a better idea."
>
> Since then, a lot of great work has been done by all mozilla.org
> developers, fixing warnings and bugs, porting and cleaning up code,
> improving performance, refining downloadable chrome, setting up the
> autoconf build system, etc. But the mail/news code from Netscape never
> arrived."
>
> Netscape never released the 4.x (or even the half-way-to-5.x) mail/news
> code. How can anything in Mozilla be derived from it?
>
> (I'm genuinely curious; an assertion like that made by most people I
> would have disregarded as misinformed, but from an @mozilla.org email
> address it makes me wonder if Everything I Know Is False...)
>
> Stuart.
I think the assertion was made because the author of the article, Jamie
Zawinski, referred to the NS4.x code as broken. I think the previous
message was asking 'is that really what is now done, or are we still
doing it the borked NS4.x way the author describes?' If, as you say, the
Mozilla team never got Mail/News code from 4.x/5.x then (a) the
Mail/News code was written entirely from scratch (and therefore does it
implement that algorithm as described?) or (b) it was based upon earlier
code eg 3.x (and may still be borked, or it may implement that algorithm
as described)
I am still wondering if the algorithm is implemented as described, or
implemented in the same way that NS4.x was - whether NS delivered
4.x/5/x code or not. The primary reason for me suspecting it is similar
to NS4.x is that I have never see a dummy level 0 parent.
Indeed, the reason I started this thread is that I don't believe
threading is as optimum as it could be - and this could be because it
isn't implemented Jamie's way.
Jeremy
