From kde-pim  Mon Jul 21 02:38:02 2003
From: Don Sanders <sanders () kde ! org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:38:02 +0000
To: kde-pim
Subject: Re: [Kde-pim] Re: ClientInterface (was Re: Fwd: [PATCH] kernel / UI
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-pim&m=105875428120152

On Saturday 19 July 2003 17:53, Martin Konold wrote:
> Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 10:44 schrieb Marc Mutz:
>
> Hi,
>
> > the advocates of
> > this proprietory IMAP replacement just try to fix the symptoms.
>
> I think that this is the strongest argument against this c/s idea!
> if you want to seperate the storage from the GUI use IMAP but dont
> invent another protocol!
>
> If you want different clients to concurrently access the mail
> storage use IMAP.....

The problem with this suggestion is that even for IMAP KMail needs a 
local representation of what's on the server. eg. dimap uses a 
maildir representation.

We want to allow multiple clients to access this local representation. 
Thus we have a case of multiple processes (one for each client) 
accessing a shared resource (the local representation) and hence we 
need a mechanism to manage access to that resource.

I know of two approaches to solve this problem, the first is to use a 
single server process to manage access. The second is to make every 
client a server and create a peer-peer network.

The proponents of the serverless model don't seem to fully understand 
the complexities of managing shared access to a resource. I covered 
some of those overlooked complexities in my latest mail to Marc.

> IMHO the current proposal is completeley overengineered and
> reinventing the wheel.

It's the simplest solution I know of and in my opinion the only 
feasible solution presented thus far.

Don.
_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/