Subject: Re: [lemonade] Comments on implementing BURL, CATENATE, and URLAUTH

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:31:48 +0100

Dave Cridland writes:
> On Fri Dec  2 06:08:17 2005, Mark Crispin wrote:
>> I suspect (fear) that some webmail programs would get the idea that 
>> it will be more "efficient" to use URLFETCH rather than 
>> SELECT/FETCH/etc.
>
> It'd be more efficient for a webmail client, but only under some 
> circumstances (such as when the object referenced by the URL were 7 
> or 8 bit, and there was no need to rebuild the summary display). A 
> webmail which handled that distinction is likely to be designed well 
> enough to avoid the need entirely.

How about a webmail client written by someone who thinks URLFETCH is 
always more "efficient" (substitute any positive-sounding adjective)? 
Is that likely to be well designed?

I share Mark's fear. Too many web bozos like to fit the entire world 
into some sort of "stateless" URL scheme.

Arnt

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:11:12 +0000

On Fri Dec  2 14:31:48 2005, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>> I suspect (fear) that some webmail programs would get the idea 
>>> that it will be more "efficient" to use URLFETCH rather than 
>>> SELECT/FETCH/etc.
>> 
>> circumstances (such as when the object referenced by the URL were 
>> 7 or 8 bit, and there was no need to rebuild the summary display). 
>> A webmail which handled that distinction is likely to be designed 
>> well enough to avoid the need entirely.
> 
> How about a webmail client written by someone who thinks URLFETCH 
> is always more "efficient" (substitute any positive-sounding 
> adjective)? Is that likely to be well designed?
> 
> 
Well, no. :-) They'd be missing the advantage of using BINARY, for a 
start.

> I share Mark's fear. Too many web bozos like to fit the entire 
> world into some sort of "stateless" URL scheme.

While I sympathise with your sentiments, having thought quite a bit 
about how a web-based IMAP client could and should work, it is very 
difficult to reconcile the distinct models. If you're writing for the 
web, you have no alternative but to conform to the stateless model.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:37:41 +0100

Dave Cridland writes:
> difficult to reconcile the distinct models.

Right. Much more pleasant if the webmail programmer if the the IMAP 
server author has to reconcile the two models.

Personally, I think I'd be happy with the URLFETCH if the document were 
to say that IMAP servers are not expected to provide similar levels of 
performance as with SELECT/FETCH, and that clients needing performance 
should consider using SELECT/FETCH instead of URLFETCH.

Arnt

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 09:52:49 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> How about a webmail client written by someone who thinks URLFETCH is always 
>> more "efficient" (substitute any positive-sounding adjective)? Is that 
>> likely to be well designed?
> Well, no. :-) They'd be missing the advantage of using BINARY, for a start.

So?  I doubt that any webmail client uses BINARY now.

>> I share Mark's fear. Too many web bozos like to fit the entire world into 
>> some sort of "stateless" URL scheme.
> While I sympathise with your sentiments, having thought quite a bit about how 
> a web-based IMAP client could and should work, it is very difficult to 
> reconcile the distinct models. If you're writing for the web, you have no 
> alternative but to conform to the stateless model.

Nonsense.  It is perfectly possible to build a webmail client that 
maintains state and keeps a stateful IMAP session open.  WebPine is an 
example of such a client.

It does require the programmer to do some work.  But "need to do some 
work" is quite a bit different than "no alternative".

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.