Re: Considering reverting imaplib2.py and IDLE support - need feedback

[Marc MERLIN <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:34:44AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Mike Dawson wrote:
> >
> > I think idle support is a really important thing to have and was 
> > something that mail addicts really appreciate - I mean having to wait 
> > for the sync to get your spam makes some people twitch.
> 
> <grin>
> 
> Of course, I agree...  the problem is that the existing code that
> provides it required a switch to a library that has introduced stability
> problems.  I think I am going to have to revert it for now.  I just got
> yet another bug report about it.  I think imaplib2 is not ready for
> prime time yet.

For what it's worth, I wrapped offlineimap in a while loop with a quick
shell script to detect hangs and kill it. 
I'm not saying that it's a "good" solution, but for me IDLE support is
required to be able to get mail at all, so it's worth it.
With my while loop, things work great, even if it's a bit ugly.

Would there be a way to either
1) add a built in watchdog in offlineimap to restart de-wedge/restart it as
required while imaplib2 gets fixed?
2) make imaplib2/IDLE a compile option for those who really need it?
(yes, I know, right now the code doesn't allow for easily making it a
compile option, but it's a suggestion to the original patch author).

#2 would allow for distros to build offlineimap and offlineimap-idle and
people use the the one that works for them or the one they need.
Hopefully eventually offlineimap-idle would become the default again.

Marc
-- 
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
                                      .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/