On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Marc Chantreux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Bron and thanks for replying. > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:04:01AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > Yes, it is maintained. Sorry I haven't looked at issues for a while, the > > plan was to wait until the next draft and spend some time updating. > > next draft of what? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jmap/documents/ (sorry, I kind of assumed everyone following JMAP knew that it was at the IETF right now) > waiting for that, can i cpanize + debianize the application > (maybe split things into the proxy itself and the installation procedure) ? > > Absolutely, you can do whatever you want :) It's MIT licensed. I'd love pull requests that make it better as well. I've been considering working on a writeback rather than writethrough mode that will make it blindingly fast to work with, and just sync changes back to the underlying IMAP/SMTP/*DAV servers asynchronously. Clearly if there's an incompatibility, then things might unwind in a way that they can't if you always write through to the underlying store rather than updating the local store, but having the proxy be a standalone JMAP server with a sync layer is tempting. Bron. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JMAP" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jmap-discuss/CAKUUC6VsqyntU1EC5eS7gbB_4nfxn94D%2B5tLaT-iEztJ9BzRcg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
