> IMHO SEDA is required for > performance but is not required for correctness. so it seems a little > pointless to abandon the synchronous version.
In my humble opinion asynchronous IO/SEDA are not required for performance and there are many many more problems to be solved BEFORE you hit the scalability issues of thread constraints. I would put it to you that MIME parsing, storage, search, indexing, IMAP command parsing so outweigh the costs of front-end connection handling as to make it a rather needless complexity for your 1.0 implementation. I suggest checking out the HEAD of Meldware's IMAP or even the last build (http://buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/Downloads) (LGPL and proud) and seeing this in action. Not only is it not slow but the only thing that has any real wait is initially opening a large mailbox and issuing a fetch (which would not be any faster with asynch IO on the front end). I'd also suggest that the benefits of asynchronous IO may be significantly lower for a stateful protocol than for stateless protocols. I'm not saying that asynchronous IO is not worth doing, but that IMAP is such a complex beast that you're better off focusing on making it work as fast as possible as simply as possible for your IMAP 1.0. I say this in the best of spirit as we benefited from looking at an old "proposal" test kit from JAMES early on among other things that were helpful elsewhere. A healthier JAMES is good for us. -Andy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
