Re: [Fwd: [evolution-patches] [resend] patches for #20672 (gtkhtml and mailer)]

[Radek Doulík <rodo ximian com>]

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 23:14, Larry Ewing wrote:
> > > I'm not strongly opposed to this patch and rodo's approval is enough 
> > > that I wouldn't mind it going in I would just like to avoid the 
> > > autosaved references if possible.
> > 
> > Would you prefer a gtkhtml command to retrieve the undo step counter?
> > Using that the composer could implement the autosave logic.
> > 
> 
> That seems pretty reasonable.  Any thoughts Radek?

Yeah, it can be done this way as well. On the other hand we already have
the same mechanism for saved/is-saved, so it makes sense implement
autosaved/is-autosaved the same way.

If we do autosave counter outside, we should probably also remove
saved/is-saved and use undo counter as well.

I personally prefer to have save, autosave counters inside gtkhtml. They
use gtkhtml's commands so it doesn't add any new complicated API. The
reason I implemented saved/is-saved this way was that users of
libgtkhtml may find the way how to handle saving easier. (we don't have
much documentation :) Last time I was asked about saving (implementing
dirty flag) by bighead on irc, so it may not be so clear though ;-)

I wouldn't mind either approach.

Cheers
Radek