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

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 software.complete.org, etc.

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

-- John