python, offlineimap and wakeups (outch)

Dan Christensen jdc at
Tue Mar 15 18:42:51 GMT 2011

Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian at> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:35:19 -0400, Dan Christensen <jdc at> wrote:
>> Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian at> writes:
>> How about increasing 50ms to 300ms or 500ms?  I don't think there's any
>> harm in waiting 0.5s for an interrupt.  (Or, use a large timeout when in
>> daemon mode and a small timeout the rest of the time?)
> The 50ms comes from python's threading module, not by an arbitrary
> choice from us. That having said, we can do a
> sleep(0.5) combined with non-blocking checks. But that not only means a
> lag when sending interrupts, but in the current architecture, also when
> we finish regularly.

Couldn't you only do the sleep(0.5) trick when in daemon mode?  I
wouldn't think that the wake-ups matter much when not in daemon mode
(but I do agree that they are important in general).


More information about the OfflineIMAP-project mailing list