Re: Imap Backend Propsal

Bertrand Mansion wrote:

<neufeind@speedpartner.de> wrote :

Hi Richard, please excuse, I didn't have time to go through all the details you mentioned. But have you had a look at Net_IMAP and how your feature-ideas could maybe be integrated into it? I'm almost certain most people on this list will agree that we should try to avoid another IMAP-class if possible. Maybe write Damian (the lead of Net_IMAP) a private email explaining in short (!) your ideas and how they might be incorporated into the current package.

Net_Imap does not use the imap extension, it uses Net_Socket instead, which makes it a) really slow, b) unstable. And useless in my case where performance and reliability matters. Furthermore, Net_Imap isn't thought as an helper for common imap handling tasks, but more as a connection and command sender. I would call Net_Imap an emulator class. The proposed Mail_Imap (BTW, I prefer Mail_Imap to Mail_ImapMailbox) is really an helper in the sense that Mail_Mime is an helper too. I makes common tasks easier to achieve. In conclusion, there is IMO a place for such a package in PEAR.

maybe switch Net_IMAP to using a backend-interface? both socket und imap-extensions could be added as backends, without breaking BC. stephan