Re: RFC mailbox interface

[Kenneth Haley <haleykd yahoo com>]

On 11.23.2001 01:25 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Thu, 22 November 20:24 Kenneth Haley wrote:
>> On 11.22.2001 05:23 Pawel Salek wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2001.11.22 10:56 Kenneth Haley wrote:
>>>> Does the API really need getAllHeaders, getBody, and getAll or 
>>>> would getAll be enough and let the client seperate out the headers?
>>> 
>>> Yes. Think of IMAP or similar protocol: You do not want to fetch 
>>> all the messages just to access subjects and dates. Actually, even 
>>> more
>>> fine-grained API would be appreciated (if only implementation is 
>>> not too difficult): getBodyPart(partNo) - to download attachments 
>>> on request only.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wouldn't that require MIME parsing in the lib?  I don't know how 
>> IMAP handles this but it's likely to be to much for a simple mailbox 
>> lib.
> 
> IMAP itself requires MIME capability both on server and client side.  
> A full IMAP client library is a major undertaking; see the list 
> archive for discussion on why this is the case.
> 
> MIME parsing aside, Pawel is right to want a fine grained API.  If 
> the mailbox storage is managed by a server on a remote host (like 
> with IMAP), fine grained control implies less network traffic and 
> therefore better perceived performance on slow links.
> 
My concern has to due with implemeting this for mailboxes that don't 
already support it.  It would be best if the API can be designed in 
such a way as to allow for this.
-- 
K. Haley <halykd@yahoo.com>