On 1/25/07, Serge Knystautas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Serge Knystautas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I would suggest looking briefly at the raw IMAP protocol. It makes
> > the protocol nasty, but every command gets a unique token so that
> > requests and responses are asynchronous. I would presume this is why
> > someone like Andy will question the larger scalability of the protocol
> > given its complexity and how the asynchronous nature of rich email is
> > built right into the protocol instead of having the client create
> > multiple HTTP connections in a REST style.
>
> not just Andy :-)
>
> there are quite a few of us, now...
>
> IMAP is broken. a new RESTful protocol is needed.
>
> an advanced server capable of supporting both a next generation
> protocol and IMAP would be very cool
Yes, but... my company's new IMAP server provider supports the IDLE
command, so I get alerted immediately when a new email arrives
(http://email.about.com/od/emailbehindthescenes/g/imap_idle.htm). I
did a test from my gmail account last night... I swear 0.2 seconds
after I clicked "send", Thunderbird dinged and showed the newly
arrived message. I almost thought it was an error message as I had
barely started moving my hand away from the keyboard.
Ok, so it's not the killer app for email, but you would lose features
like that if you moved to a RESTful protocol AFAICT.
yes, you'd lose server push but a web feed (RSS or atom) for email
would work adequately. it would also allow email to be more easily
federated.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
