[PATCH 0/13] Re: Reintegrate imaplib2 and IDLE, again
glasse at cs.rpi.edu
Mon Feb 7 18:38:00 GMT 2011
On 02/06/2011 04:15 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> Thanks; it looks much better at a first quick review but most patches
> miss the Signed-off-by line unless you don't intend the topic to be
OK, sorry, I didn't realize that was a requirement.
>> - Patch 3: Import imaplib2 instead of imaplib. imaplib2 has slightly
>> different semantics than standard imaplib, so this patch will break
>> the build, but I thought it was helpful to have it as a separate
> Should be told in the commit message.
Which part? That it will break the build?
>> The last patch is by Tom Lawton<tlawton at gmx.de>. My email setup here
>> is a little rough, so I'm sorry if that information gets lost.
> The information is OK but Tom's Signed-off-by is missing (added him in
OK, I'll make sure that's updated.
>> - imaplib2 spawns three threads per connection. Threads are also
>> spawned by the keepalive() method in imapserver, but this patch
>> series doesn't make that worse. This might be seen as a regression
>> for the single-threaded option :)
> Library threads aren't ours. As long as we don't break the
> single-threaded option for our code, I guess it's OK. Actually, I didn't
> check if what I'm saying makes sense in this case, though. :)
> So, do we always _need_ threads enabled in our code in order to have
> IDLE? Can IDLE honor single-threaded option?
imaplib2 is completely and utterly thread-based, so even if we don't use
IDLE, we still have the reader and writer threads. And it's not as
simple as try import one, except import the other -- as you see, there
are fairly significant semantic differences between the two.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project