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

[Marc MERLIN <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:13:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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?
 
Without IDLE and my patch to remove the date query, the data generated is
too high by a factor of 6 to 10 so that I get my account locked out.
 
> > 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.

Ah, no good then.

> > 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.

Right. While it sucks maintenance-wise, it could be a 3rd party provided
patch left as source in the tarball that debian and friends can apply at
build time.

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/