[Mailman-Users] Threading for integration with message board

[Robert Hsiung]

At 11:05 AM -0700 10/5/06, Brad Knowles wrote:

>>>  That would require potentially re-parsing and modifying every
>>>  single message in the archive, every time a new message comes
>>>  into the list.
>>
>>  Why would it imply that? The message comes in, you determine
>>  which thread it belongs to, and all you have to do is (1) go
>>  back in that thread until you reach the point where it belongs,
>
>Right, but a new message can come into a thread at any time in the 
>future, potentially years in the future.  You'll have to change the 
>"next" and "previous" links in the affected pre-generated HTML files 
>(for each of the different types of sorting, including date, thread, 
>and subject), plus the associated indexes.

OK, that's 6 changed messages for every out-of-order one (+ 3 index 
files). That's still a lot less than "every single message in the 
archive, every time".

>And then all links which people have put into their messages will 
>break, if the archives ever have to be re-generated.

Wouldn't that depend on how and why they're regenerated? If it's just 
to add messages, then the same process could be followed, 6 old files 
would be changed for each new file, and all the old files could keep 
their message numbers.

>>  which would just involve re-parsing those messages, and (2)
>>  insert it there, which would involve linking the previous
>>  message to it and linking it to the next message, or
>>  modifying two messages.
>
>Take a look at the code.  Understand what it actually does.  This 
>process is not nearly so straightforward as you think.

What code? I didn't have any specific code, or algorithm, in mind. It 
just seemed to me that inserting a message earlier in a thread 
shouldn't be so much more trouble than adding it at the end. As I 
said before, it's just:

	1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 3

instead of:

	1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4

If it's more complicated than that, then there's something I'm not 
understanding, and I'd appreciate it if you'd explain. Thanks,

Bob