Re: Communciator 4.02 Imap EXPUNGE problem

[Eric Rizzo <[e-mail]>]

Mark Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:54:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Barry Leiba,
> Multimedia Messaging wrote:
> > I think, though, that most implementers *think of* IMAP
> > as a protocol that allows simultaneous access to the same mailbox, and that
> > it would be useful to state explicitly that some servers, under some
> > conditions, do not, and that a client should not assume such capability.
> 
> I wonder how many other statements have to be made of the form "yes, the
> protocol allows a server to export the concept but that doesn't necessarily
> mean that it's there."

Probably lots, but if it helps make in-progress and future
implementations more interoperable, isn't it worth it?


> > Remember that you've been doing this for a long time
> > and you have more than one implementation behind you.
> 
> I don't think that makes much of a difference.

It most certainly does.  You cannot assume that a developer can easily
or speedily absorb the (extensive, I'm sure) knowledge and experiences
someone like yourself has aquired through years of working with IMAP
servers and clients (not to mention actually developing the protocol). 
You know the pitfalls and what assumptions would be considered
"unwarranted" like instinct, but newcomers are not so fortunate, at
least at first.  The type of document that Barry suggests would help to
bring said newbies up to date with these issues.
Maybe an analogy...A lot of experienced programmers don't use a LINT
tool, yet I know I've learned to avoid a lot of common mistakes that I
didn't know as a "newbie" programmer by having used one myself.
> 
> *Begin flame*
> It gets awfully frustrating when I make a recommendation, and immediately
> someone goes and contradicts me and/or says that it's due to a "stealth" bug
> in my implementation.
> *End flame*

As Barry said in his reply, if we didn't repsect your opinions, we
wouldn't listen and discuss them.

> 
> > Oh, absolutely.  I'm suggesting an "Implementer's Guide".  Perhaps I'll try
> > putting together a draft of one, and let people beat on it and add their
> > favourite stumbles.  I think such a document will be useful -- because if
> > this stuff were really all as obvious as you say, not so many people would
> > be stumbling over it.
> 
> Thanks for volunteering.
> 
> But, what happens what you say something in your "implementor's guide" that
> you feel strongly about, and I feel equally strongly that it's completely
> different, and Chris Newman feels equally strongly that the right thing is
> completely different from what either you or I thinK?

It not supposed to be like a style guide.  I would expect the issues to
be relatively concrete, black and white as possible.

> 
> Most of this document will inevitably be religion.

Reading his statement: 'Perhaps I'll draft one, and let people beat on
it and add to it..." I don't think Mr. Leiba is dumb enough to think
that his recomendations and/or styles are the end-all authority.  But
such a document would have to start somewhere, with someone.  I would be
happy to be among those who analyzed/revised it from the perspective of
an "outside" developer.

Is there support for this "Impementor's Guide" out there.  This thread
seems to be rather quiet, WRT to messages from those other than Mark and
Barry (and now myself?)

-- 
Eric Nicholas Rizzo                            University of Miami
[e-mail]    http://www.ece.miami.edu/~erizzo
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man talking sense to himself is no more insane than a man
talking nonsense not to himself...or just as insane."
                      -Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead