Re: Multiple SMTP connections in parallel

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Albrecht:

On 06/09/2017 12:54:48 PM Fri, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently implementing the "automatic queue transmission after timeout" feature which has been discussed 
> recently here.
>
> This is simple if there is only /one/ smtp server.  But it gets difficult if the user has more than one 
> server, probably with different responsiveness  E.g. I send to one ISP via a local Postfix (fast and always 
> reachable, let Postfix deal with any network issues), and to an other ISP directly (sometimes slow and 
> unreachable).
>
> Of course only /one/ simultaneous connection shall be open to a specific server.  But while the send process 
> to one (possibly slow) server is running in a separate thread, there is IMO no good reason why the send 
> process to an other (faster?) server should be delayed until the slow one is ready.
>
> The difficult part is how this should be displayed to the user.  The present implementation has a dialogue 
> which receives the progress information via IPC.  This is not feasible if multiple threads would feed their 
> information into it, as each one would overwrite the information from the others.
>
> I think the only usable solution would be either a separate dialogue for each SMTP server, or a single 
> dialogue which dynamically adds and removes a section consisting of a label and a progress bar for each 
> server.
>
> A different situation occurs if the transmission is initiated in background by the timeout handler.  IMO, in 
> this case no dialogue should be shown.  Instead, I think a notification (of level 
> LIBBALSA_INFORMATION_MESSAGE) when the transmission is started and when it has been finished, either with 
> success or with an error, should be shown.
>
> What do you think?

So the thread-per-server model would be used both for user-initiated sends (such as File => Send queued mail) 
and for timer-initiated sends, but the progress information would be presented differently, is that right? I 
like the outline, especially the single dialog with progress indicators dynamically added and removed. Smooth 
transitions would be really cool…

Best,

Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlk8pkAACgkQH1/UtbkqdPVTXQCfRk4zQwexon3C/fylvAmqTCBm
2hkAoJpC7rbrz3g+fqK06HKbtxY1XwP+
=S0a0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----