Re: Thoughts on the general API, and the Header API.

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:06:34 -0800, Glenn Linderman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Another thought occurred to me regarding this "Access API"... an IMAP 
> implementation could defer obtaining data parts from the server until 
> requested, under the covers of this same API.  Of course, for devices 
> with limited resources, that would probably be the optimal approach, but 
> for devices with lots of resources, an IMAP implementation might also 
> want to offer other options.

I like your thought about treating memory as just another backing
store and designing the API accordingly.  I will keep it in mind
as I go along.

> On approximately 1/28/2010 6:20 PM, came the following characters from 
> the keyboard of Glenn Linderman:
> > I guess no one else is responding here at the moment.  Read the ideas 
> > below, and then afterward, consider building the APIs you've suggested 
> > on top of them.  And then, with the full knowledge that the messages 
> > may be either in fast or slow storage, I think that you'll agree that 
> > converting the whole tree in one swoop isn't always appropriate... all 
> > headers, probably could be.  Data, because of its size, should 
> > probably be done on demand.

I hope the fact that no one is responding means that they think I'm at
least on the right track :)

I've committed a skeleton of the new Header classes to the
lp:python-email6 repository, along with my testing framework.  More test
cases to come.

--David