On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 23:15, Not Zed wrote:
Of course, this doesn't mean that the work can't start now. :-) The IMAP rewrite could be maintained as a separate branch, and merged in after 1.4 is released.There's no need for any of this. It can be setup as a separate camel provider which isn't compiled by default, using a different prefix. It could even just be compiled separately from the main tree and plugged in at run-time.
Oh, even better then. :-) I was assuming that rewriting the IMAP backend might also imply changing other parts of the library, but if that's not the case, all the better.
If we start throwing in ideas for a better IMAP implementation, we should probably consider the issues with the current offline support as well?..Unless we decide to make it properly atomic, this is independent of the backend code. And even if we did its not that hard (and would probably be inside camel).
OK, so it sounds like we don't have to worry about this for now. I am not sure what you mean with "properly atomic" though, can you explain? -- Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>
Description: This is a digitally signed message part