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 _______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
