Syncing strategy

[Daniel Pittman]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 00:34, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian at sspaeth.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 00:17:33 +1100, Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net> wrote:

>> It will, on some servers, where there a select (which is, in essence,
>> a read/write lock on the folder) costs a second or two of processing
>> time without competitive load.  (OTOH, you could probably EXAMINE for
>> the server -> local phase, which is a read-only select, and much less
>> costly...)
>
> Thanks for the info. So it would make sense to pursue that avenue further.

Yeah.  I would probably say "select once" is a better investment than
using examine, FWIW, and I don't know of any IMAP server where it
would hurt things.

>> (What I would *really* love is if the difference between "folder
>> deleted on server" and "folder created on local" was noticed and the
>> create propagated though.  Plus a pony. ;)
>
> I don't see how or why that should be difficult to detect and implement.
> Although I am sure there are reasons why John has never implemented it
> so far, so there might be some details hidden that might make it
> difficult :). I put it on my virtual TODO.

It requires extra local state - a copy of the folder list on the local
side, basically.  You can't infer it from the information presently
stored, as I understand things.

Regards,
    Daniel
-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
              ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons