Re: [Evolution] Wish: Uncached IMAP folders

[Jerome Warnier <jwarnier beeznest net>]

Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 12:18 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 17:04 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 11:05 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> > > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> > > I don't think you quite understand how IDLE works (or, rather, /doesn't/
> > > work)
> > Well, no then. Please tell me...
>
> The problem with the IDLE extension is that it only monitors the 1
> folder that is currently in the SELECTED state, which means we'd still
> have to poll all of the other folders.
>
> The only thing IDLE gains us is "instant" notification of new messages
> in the folder currently opened (in the backend, which may or may not be
> the same as the one being viewed in the front-end) IFF (if-and-only-if)
> the client is currently idle him/herself in that folder.
>
> What does this mean? It means, if the client is currently chatting back
> and forth with the server (user is reading mails, so we are sending
> FETCH requests to get those messages or whatever), then we'll get
> untagged responses for new messages as they arrive in that
> folder /anyway/, without the need to poll that folder.
>
>
> Now, of course... this assumes that the messages the client is reading
> aren't already cached locally, because if so - it won't go to the
> network (theoretically, altho I think there are bugs about that - it
> might still request the body structure in order to piece the message
> parts back together if the message was large enough to be broken into
> smaller chunks in the local cache).
>
> Hope that clears things up a bit...
Well, yes, thanks.

> Jeff
-- 
Jérôme Warnier
FLOSS Consultant
http://beeznest.net