IDLE again

[Dominic LoBue]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Dominik Bruhn <dominik at dbruhn.de> wrote:
> Hy,
> whats the current status of the implementaiton of the IDLE-Command?
> I know there was an implmenetation which got removed because of various
> bugs.
> So is it possible to implement IDLE in Offlineimap? Is this a problem of
> the libray? How much work is it? Are there any patches available?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Dominik Bruhn
> mailto: dominik at dbruhn.de
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAksU8dwACgkQL62MPsbzkm0d0QCfQPgnJ/G+viY08EvkQrYrRLuL
> y6IAn2qUwyZCIlRUVgh7+k/9d6R/Hrwr
> =kPr8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> OfflineIMAP-project mailing list
> OfflineIMAP-project at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/offlineimap-project
>
> OfflineIMAP homepage: http://software.complete.org/offlineimap
>


John,

I too would like to see this feature brought back. I had to stop using
offlineimap because the removal of IDLE support caused offlineimap to
peg my workstation's CPUs at 100%.

I am willing to do the legwork myself on this one to get it working,
though I could use your assistance in determining the best approach to
take.

My first thought is to remerge imaplib2 and add a setting that can
disable imaplib2 and switch back over to imaplib should a user have
any severe problems caused by imaplib2 until the problems are fixed.
Any bugs in imaplib2 I'll fix and submit upstream.

My other thought is to add IDLE support to the twisted imap client
library, and switch offlineimap over to twisted.

I think the more viable of the two is the first option. While the
second option would be fascinating in its own right, it looks to be a
massive undertaking and I already have a ton on my plate.

I've already created a new branch locally and reverted the branch
merge which removed imaplib2 in the first place.

Can you point me towards any bug reports that you believe imaplib2 was
responsible for?

-- 
Dominic LoBue