Am Samstag, den 13.01.2007, 10:53 +0000 schrieb robert burrell donkin: > > > this is a good example of why i claim that state needs to considered > > > more carefully. hopefully it may also illustrate why i claim that > > > session is harmful. > > > > That's not fair. :-( It's just an example for work-in-progress. I > > explained that I removed the lazy init because there was a problem I > > hadn't time to investigate further on. > > didn't intend this to be a criticism of you personally - i understand > how difficult IMAP is and think you've been doing a great job :-)
> i shouldn't have rushed to specifics so quickly since i'm trying to > criticize the API rather than the implementation > > but it is a good illustration of the kinds of problems that the > current API creates No, I don't agree. You can not judge missing optimization of a prototype implementation as weak points of the API. And please note that concrete proposals and suggestions for improvements have much more value than critique and abstract discussion. Critique is just more welcome when it comes with a concrete solution like a patch. :-) > messaging number is state that the current API forces to be associated > with the mailbox session since it's the only available option. > > there are different approaches to the design of APIs and to state > management that i think may be worth considering. IMHO the system > would also benefit from another look at the layering. > > interested? Yes under following conditions: Concrete, by providing interfaces and code as samples for a discussion base. Separate discussion on current use cases (SMTP/IMAP/POP3, many different possible backends) from future ones. Difficult backends are JavaMail stores, MBox, Maildir with separate metadata file or even a virtual one through IMAP. Joachim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
