Re: [Evolution-hackers] Let the porting begin

[Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>]

On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 11:58 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> I took a look at the IDLE implementation last night and felt it went
> about it the wrong way.

Note that the IDLE implementation got changed (reimplemented) this
morning.

Although the same problems that you mention here still apply.

I also added some comments. The poll() idea is indeed something that at
some point I should refactor the loop to.

> Firstly, the added camel_stream_[read,write]_nb() and
> camel_stream_read_idle() functionality is totally unnecessary and just
> makes the camel stream API gross (not to mention duplicating a lot of
> code as there's no real difference from the normal read/write
> implementations other than the timeout).
> 
> You should simply poll() on the socket descriptors (and a pipe fd used
> for telling the IDLE thread's I/O loop to finish and send DONE).
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 00:41 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 14:15 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > 
> > > Using this changeset you can follow the changes to camel-lite:
> > > 
> > > 	http://tinymail.org/trac/tinymail/changeset/2823
> > > 
> > 
> > This changeset are a bunch of compilation warnings for Matthew's Base64
> > patch to Camel: http://tinymail.org/trac/tinymail/changeset/2827
> > 
> > 
> > ps. Adding Matthew in CC.
> > 
> 
-- 
Philip Van Hoof, software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://www.pvanhoof.be/blog