TB Delete Attachment Extension ( created !)
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
OK, I managed to save the thread pane's current index (selected row) attribute and then reset the thread pane selection based on that following a sucessful completion of the operation.
The thing is that I reset the thread pane selection after a timout (3 sec) but on folders that have many messages, it takes alot longer than that to rebuild the MSF file ( which MUST be done ) .
So... it is still possible that the 'correct' message will still not be selected (remote chance)
I tested it on a folder that was 35 Mb, deleting a 3 Mb attachment and it <b>did</b> select the correct message...
The thing is that I reset the thread pane selection after a timout (3 sec) but on folders that have many messages, it takes alot longer than that to rebuild the MSF file ( which MUST be done ) .
So... it is still possible that the 'correct' message will still not be selected (remote chance)
I tested it on a folder that was 35 Mb, deleting a 3 Mb attachment and it <b>did</b> select the correct message...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
Also, TriEnt suggested a 'detach' option, whereby the attachment you are going to delete woul be saved to a folder you specify in prefs
I am working on that very thing at the moment. It does work but throws up some funny XUL artifacts.
TriEnt also suggested saving the file size of a deleted/zapped attachment. That works too
Once those two suggestions are fully tested and working <b>without</b> artifacts, I will release 0.4.4 which will include (so far)
1) the reselect algorithm I mentioned in my previous post
2) a real settings panel where one can input and modify <b>all</b> of the prefs for AttachmentTools
3) a detach Attachment right-click option ( need advice on zap/detach or delete/attach menu wording )
4) a 'include file size' option for attachment summaries
Cheers
I am working on that very thing at the moment. It does work but throws up some funny XUL artifacts.
TriEnt also suggested saving the file size of a deleted/zapped attachment. That works too
Once those two suggestions are fully tested and working <b>without</b> artifacts, I will release 0.4.4 which will include (so far)
1) the reselect algorithm I mentioned in my previous post
2) a real settings panel where one can input and modify <b>all</b> of the prefs for AttachmentTools
3) a detach Attachment right-click option ( need advice on zap/detach or delete/attach menu wording )
4) a 'include file size' option for attachment summaries
Cheers
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
TechFan wrote:Nice. Is rebuilding the entire MSF a requirement? I am just wondering how Outlook implements it so fast adn the deleted item stays right next to it. . .
Techfan, Outlook is a different animal.
Your comment is like saying
how can a Porsche with a 6 cyl engine be as fast (or faster) then a Corvette with a V8
EDIT: And yes, rebuilding the MSF *is* a requirement.
- TriEnt
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 26th, 2004, 11:38 pm
- Location: Bucharest, RO
- Contact:
Ha! Isn't this just great news?
Instead of using a pref folder, can you just prompt the "save as" (or "save all") dialog so that the user can choose the location him/herself?
How did you do it? Last time it seemed impossible...
Cheers!
ausdilecce wrote:Also, TriEnt suggested a 'detach' option, whereby the attachment you are going to delete woul be saved to a folder you specify in prefs
I am working on that very thing at the moment. It does work but throws up some funny XUL artifacts.
Instead of using a pref folder, can you just prompt the "save as" (or "save all") dialog so that the user can choose the location him/herself?
ausdilecce wrote:TriEnt also suggested saving the file size of a deleted/zapped attachment. That works too
How did you do it? Last time it seemed impossible...
Cheers!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
Yea Yea Yea
I don't recall that I said it was impossible. ..
I did it the way I said I would have to ..
1) save the attachment,
2) get the size,
3) delete the file
But I thought, well if we are going to save the attachment anyway, might as well give the user the chance to save it ( detach )
so, in effect, they go hand in hand.
I did have to play some games with timing as TB starts a new thread to save the attachment so the filesize is NOT immediately available to me
so I really don't look at the size of the file until much much later ( when attachment stripping is happening ).
It is at that point that I can either delete or NOT delete the file ( hence detach )
Can we say we were both right ?
I don't recall that I said it was impossible. ..
I did it the way I said I would have to ..
1) save the attachment,
2) get the size,
3) delete the file
But I thought, well if we are going to save the attachment anyway, might as well give the user the chance to save it ( detach )
so, in effect, they go hand in hand.
I did have to play some games with timing as TB starts a new thread to save the attachment so the filesize is NOT immediately available to me
so I really don't look at the size of the file until much much later ( when attachment stripping is happening ).
It is at that point that I can either delete or NOT delete the file ( hence detach )
Can we say we were both right ?
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: May 1st, 2004, 1:25 am
@sasquatch:
Hmmm. Maybe you should read the thread once again?
The "main thing" is that we are now able to delete attachements of mails. Often attachements aren't very important (for example a vcard) and/or need much place on your harddisk (a huge BMP a "good fellow" sends you). So, you delete the mail (with the att.). BUT sometimes the text in the mail body itself is something you wanna keep (for example someting really important ending with: For a good laugh after work I included the following Powerpoint presentation. It has just 17 MB...). Until now you had to keep the huge mail because you couldn't detach the attachement. - Now you can!
For me - and I think many other user - this is a "killer XPI"! The function of deleting attachements was my only reason to use Outlook (till now!!).
The "add-on" function of EML-import is quit useful for users how have some EMLs they wanna (guess...) import
So, give the XPI a try!
Jimmy73
Hmmm. Maybe you should read the thread once again?
The "main thing" is that we are now able to delete attachements of mails. Often attachements aren't very important (for example a vcard) and/or need much place on your harddisk (a huge BMP a "good fellow" sends you). So, you delete the mail (with the att.). BUT sometimes the text in the mail body itself is something you wanna keep (for example someting really important ending with: For a good laugh after work I included the following Powerpoint presentation. It has just 17 MB...). Until now you had to keep the huge mail because you couldn't detach the attachement. - Now you can!
For me - and I think many other user - this is a "killer XPI"! The function of deleting attachements was my only reason to use Outlook (till now!!).
The "add-on" function of EML-import is quit useful for users how have some EMLs they wanna (guess...) import
So, give the XPI a try!
Jimmy73
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
-
- Posts: 6022
- Joined: November 25th, 2003, 8:56 am
I'm not so sure I see the need of it. Heck, my hard drive is 40G I think, not much of a worry there.
The odd thing is that I have some older emails I wish I still had working attachments. It just show up with missing file or something. Another ironic part is that you mention the "vcard". Isn't that the very thing the Mozilla guys are trying to get working better as we type this? http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=76000
Thanks for the overview, though. For some reason, this interests me, but I don't know why. It sounds like it could be useful for something...
Thanks again.
The odd thing is that I have some older emails I wish I still had working attachments. It just show up with missing file or something. Another ironic part is that you mention the "vcard". Isn't that the very thing the Mozilla guys are trying to get working better as we type this? http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=76000
Thanks for the overview, though. For some reason, this interests me, but I don't know why. It sounds like it could be useful for something...
Thanks again.
-
- Posts: 6022
- Joined: November 25th, 2003, 8:56 am
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
OK, you obviously have not enabled display of other peoples sigs in this forum
its --> www.supportware.net/mozilla
You must use a mozilla based browser ( opera and IE will NOT work)
its --> www.supportware.net/mozilla
You must use a mozilla based browser ( opera and IE will NOT work)
-
- Posts: 6022
- Joined: November 25th, 2003, 8:56 am
ausdilecce wrote:OK, you obviously have not enabled display of other peoples sigs in this forum
its --> www.supportware.net/mozilla
You must use a mozilla based browser ( opera and IE will NOT work)
Nice stuff! A lot of those should just be a part of the main email application.