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: Marc MERLIN <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Dawson <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, offlineimap@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Considering reverting and IDLE support - need feedback
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:13:07 -0500

Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:34:44AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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.

How is that?

> 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?

That might be good to see anyway, but the problems go deeper than that.
 Some people can't authenticate at all because of bugs in imaplib2.

> 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).

Python doesn't really have preprocessor directives.  It may be possible
to do this in some way, but it may be rather complex and a source of
bugs itself.

> #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.

The other option would be for someone to maintain a git branch with the
IDLE support.  I would be happy to bless this work, give someone access
to post offlineimap-idle releases on, etc.

The support and testing of this is probably going to have to come from
the community.

-- John

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