Hi,
The synchronized block is actually there to prevent concurrent access to
the responder object. I realize that may not be very clear. :-)
Initially I had a synchronized block around the whole
if (!"DONE".equals(...)) {
...
} else {
...
}
block but then I realized that it wasn't necessary. Please let me know
if you think differently.
Anyways, maybe I should explain the code a bit...
I've added IdleCommandParser and IdleRequest which handle the new IDLE
command. This was pretty much just copy paste from the NoopCommandParser
and NoopRequest.
The IdleProcessor sends back a continuation request response (+ Idling)
to the client, registers a listener on the current mailbox and then
waits for the client to send DONE. When the listener gets notified of
any changes to the messages in the mailbox (new messages, deleted
messages or flags changed) it will write the same kind of untagged
response back to the client as NOOP does. Once the client sends DONE (or
anything really) the IdleProcessor will remove the listener and send
back a tagged response to the client which terminates the IDLE command.
One thing that I had to add was support for writing continuation request
responses to the client (+ Yadayada) and then handle the next line the
client sends to the server. The ContinuationReader interface is used to
read a line from the client and the processor will have to parse it and
handle it. This line will not be parsed by the decoder which usually
parses commands sent by the client. I don't know if this is a good
approach but it seems to work and I think it could be used to implement
AUTHENTICATE as well.
As I said in a previous mail there's an issue with read timeouts. IIUC
the client will be disconnected if it doesn't send anything for a
certain amount of time. When in IDLE I think we should disregard the
usual timeout and use another one or make the read timeout into a
read/write timeout so that the timer is reset both on reads and on
writes and then send back an untagged response every 30 seconds or so so
the client doesn't timeout. This is what the Dovecot IMAP server does.
Every 30 seconds it sends back something like '* OK Still here' to the
client to prevent timeouts.
Let me know what you think.
/Niklas
On 12/15/2010 05:46 PM, Norman Maurer wrote:
Just a minor comment from a quick review.
The synchronized(session) should be removed.. You use an AtomicBoolean
so you should be safe here..
Will have a deeper look later
Bye,
Nomrna
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
