On Sep 10, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Grant Baillie wrote:
On 6 Sep, 2007, at 14:26, Brian Kirsch wrote:
...
Of course I would love to see a full featured email client in
there as well but the realist in me says that probably is not
possible. I envision continued enhancement to the current plan of
mail providing a gateway to bringing in and sharing data in
Chandler with out fully replacing ones standalone mail client.
Ultimately, though, the gateway approach is limited (especially
since it relies on IMAP, whose usage is currently dwarfed by POP
and/or webmail IIRC). Since email is so central to "information
work", a question to ask is: What further email support (if any) do
we need to have to convince users (@ funding expiration) that
there's a hope of us integrating email at some point?
Yes, the gateway approach is limiting but effective in that user's
can move tasks and events sent as Email in to Chandler with minimal
effort.
It does fill an important gap since as you said "email is so central
to information work". I don't envision many if any new gateway
features, just
improvements based on user feedback to what we already have as well
as a much improved UI for setting up and working with
Mail / Sharing accounts.
If the answer is "None", then maybe we can get away with only
luring in new users with nice shiny features(*) on top of Preview.
This is a big question mark right now. What is the short term fate of
mail support for Chandler 1.0 given the current timeline and
developer resources?
It would be a good idea to focus a discussion thread solely on
Chandler 1.0 mail support. To me right now the biggest
barrier to Chandler being a full fledge IMAP client is performance
and memory foot print. Isolating the mail object to
Item conversion and commit in a MailWorker thread for Preview really
highlighted the performance deficiency.
With a fast connection,The Chandler Mail Service can download and
process 6,000+ messages before the
first 1,000 messages have been committed including notifications
fired, observers called, and mail
indexed. That is a big discrepancy. There is a lot of redundancy in
the notification and observer logic
which needs to be examined closely.
The good news is the Twisted architecture and Python email package
have pretty good
performance all things considered. So if we can solve the Chandler
specific issues then
there is a real possibility that Chandler could be a full fledge IMAP
client in not to distant future
but certainly post Chandler 1.0.
-Brian
--Grant
(*) nice and shiny on the outside, at any rate :)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
