Re: [Evolution-hackers] [evolution-kolab] IMAPX and sync- vs. async-Backends

[chen <pchenthill novell com>]

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 16:14 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> reading about the new IMAPX implementation used by Evo >=2.30, I found it
> stated that
> 
>   "Maybe if imapx had come up before, many backends such as groupwise, mapi
>    etc. would have followed this design rather than a sync one."
> 			-- Chenthill in [1]
> 
> Does this mean that the Camel IMAPX code is ready to support a backend like
> ours (for Kolab2) to be implemented as an async one rather than a sync one
> (which is the case for the MAPI-, Exchange- and SCALIX-Backends (and maybe
> others, too))?
The internal implementation of IMAPX provider is async, the requests
would be pipelined and run based on priority. Which means that one would
be able to fetch multiple messages parallely unlike other providers
where its sequential.

Though one would have to still use the sync api's which camel provides.
Adding new camel async api's is a task for future.

- Chenthill.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Christian
> 
> [1] http://chenthill.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/evolution-with-improved-imap-support-imapx/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> evolution-hackers mailing list
> evolution-hackers gnome org
> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers