Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: offlineimap: August 2009:
Re: Considering reverting and IDLE support - need feedback

Re: Considering reverting and IDLE support - need feedback

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: offlineimap@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Considering reverting and IDLE support - need feedback
From: David Favro <offlineimap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:22:40 -0400

John Goerzen wrote:
> Patch 3847d0ba9 introduced IMAP IDLE support, and with it switched from
> Python's built-in to  I have received numerous
> reports of all sorts of hanging and crashing bugs new to 6.1.0, and
> believe that they are attributable to this change.
> Therefore, I am strongly considering reverting that change, but am open
> to feedback.

I'm all for fixing/not-creating bugs, and I have no knowledge of either
imaplib or imaplib2, but I'd just like to say that IDLE support is in my
mind a very important feature.

I wonder why someone (Piers Lauder apparently) decided to write imaplib2
unless the original imaplib has innate architectural limitations, which
might indicate that imaplib2 is "the future" and the transition will
likely be made eventually anyhow -- so perhaps efforts are better spent
helping imaplib2 to progress or just waiting for it to improve.  Those
who desire more stability could continue with an older version of
offlineimap until imaplib2 becomes a little more stable.  I'd be
interested in knowing the significant differences between imaplib and
imaplib2.  If reverted, would the intention be for offlineimap to remain
without IDLE support indefinitely, or just to wait for a more stable
version of imaplib2?  Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I
haven't been following the list too closely of late.

Offlineimap is a great idea (for me), because it attempts to implement
on top of IMAP something that IMAP wasn't really intended for: a truly
distributed/replicated mail architecture.  Since it seems that the IMAP
protocol was more intended for a centralized, always-online,
client/server architecture, it doesn't really contain the necessary
features that offlineimap requires (but is the best protocol we've got
at the moment), so offlineimap will always be a bit of a workaround; yet
I think that IDLE is one of the features that helps bring us closer to
what I would like offlineimap to present, a distributed mail database.

I've been running 6.1.2 and I've managed to work around the crashes,
annoying though they may be.  That said, if I must, I can live without
IDLE support and offlineimap would still be a great program.

Just my opinion.
-- David Favro

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]