On 2/1/07, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know who is doing this really successfully and even made it a key
upselling point?
I imagine there are even performance numbers for it. I know I'm
speaking heresy...
yeh (but i'm trying to learn as little as possible about it). i
On 1/31/07, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the resources that i think are of interest are emails, meta-data about
emails, collections of emails and meta-data about collections of
emails. these concepts already have natural correspondents in HTTP and
WebDAV
U/F it looks like
You know who is doing this really successfully and even made it a key
upselling point?
I imagine there are even performance numbers for it. I know I'm
speaking heresy...
had a talk with some of the DAV folks last year. AIUI the right way to
do it would be to standardize a small amount of
On 1/28/07, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RESTfulness is a red herring.
not so much a red herring as an orthogonal kipper ;-)
yes, i admit i used a lie of juxaposition
It is not lack of RESTfulness that
makes IMAP suck. It is that it is a complex and inspecific protocol
with
smooth operation means being able to feed information about changes
back to the client which needs a little more thought
With HTTP 1.1 persistent connections this is possible and still allows
some of that pool magic. It can be a configurational pain (timeouts on
routers and stuff) but
RESTfulness is a red herring. It is not lack of RESTfulness that
makes IMAP suck. It is that it is a complex and inspecific protocol
with laborious requirements on the server that are better reserved for
the client (such as N level mime parsing where N 1).
Also POLL is not necessarily
On 1/25/07, Serge Knystautas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/24/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/23/07, Serge Knystautas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I would suggest looking briefly at the raw IMAP protocol. It makes
the protocol nasty, but every command gets a
Hi Robert,
and who would want that sort of feature, when he can have imap? RSS/Atom is
more for webapps, which want to inform a user of site updates.
This was only invented because there is no such feature as imap there...
kind regards
Juergen
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: robert
On 1/27/07, Jürgen Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
and who would want that sort of feature, when he can have imap?
IMAP is a great example of a very bad protocol totally unsuitable for
the internet
RSS/Atom is
more for webapps, which want to inform a user of site updates.
