Re: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would it be different?
Joshua Cranmer <[email protected]> Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:25:45 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/7/2015 6:14 AM, Ladar Levison wrote: > I thought this might be a good list to ask a simple, but admittedly > subjective question: If Mark Crispin was creating IMAP from scratch, in > the world of today, would it still be a line based protocol like it was > with RFC3501, or would he have gone with something more stateless, like > a JSON-RPC paradigm, like JMAP? If Mark was redesigning IMAP today, I imagine it would end up looking more or less like IMAP looks today with the biggest changes being some IMAP extensions being mandatory and the entire protocol (except message literals) being UTF-8. From reading his messages in this mailing list, he would focus on supporting use cases of clients, but primarily what he thinks a "good" IMAP client looks like--unlike many others here, he was fully insistent on message sequence numbers being the only right way to do things. A stateful, line-based protocol would be far simpler for clients to implement (particularly since I also get the impression that he would have eschewed needing to use several layers of frameworks). -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth _______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list [email protected] http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol