On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> >>> Would it be worth discussing where James IMAP is going in the near-term >>> and whether we should coordinate. >>> >> >> You are totally right. I'd be glad if we could find a good design for IMAP >> and implement it as soon as possible, not least because my maildir >> implementation will be affected by this process. IMAP is a subtle protocol. designs are non-trivial. >> I'd like to build on a relatively stable structure. use an internal API, then any changes can be bridged. a good commons-style Maildir library would be really useful generally and much easier to debug. so that's where i'd start. >> That would, by the way, be my only objection to >> releasing James too soon. First we should stabilize the IMAP stuff. release often, release early ;-) better to ship something with a low version number > Me too. I did a lot of refactoring over the last weeks and sometimes I > feel like just turning cycles.. +1 always seemed like that to me as well... > I the long term I would like to see > some kind of async processing for mailboxes. But I think thats not > feasible in the short term. dunno the reworking i did always had async in mind. last time i looked, should be reasonably easy to flip into the message passing paradigm... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
