Re: [imap5] Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

[Adrien de Croy <[e-mail]>]

On 16/02/2012 11:42 a.m., Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Feb 15 22:36:06 2012, Giovanni Panozzo wrote:
>> Il 15/02/2012 22:28, Adrien de Croy ha scritto:
>>>
>>> having dealt with support issues relating primarily to HTTP for the 
>>> last
>>> 17 years, I'd STRONGLY recommend against using anything HTTP based. The
>>> number of proxies that break WebDAV makes it problematic alone.
>>>
>>> If some clients need HTTP-based access to some IMAP function, they can
>>> use a gateway.
>>
>> Such a gateway should be a mandatory part of the protocol, or we will 
>> end up on having a lot of servers with the http gateway and many 
>> other servers without it, really bad user experience.
>>
>> Could we think a "skype-like" solution, where the client makes two 
>> attempts:
>>
>> 1) Direct socket connection on a single TCP port
>>  and then, in case of failure
>> 2) https tunnel of the same protocol (thru optional client side proxy).
>>    https is more likely to survive across proxyes than http.
>
> BOSH.

long polling is a hideous hack.  Proxies hate it.

It's basically designing a system to provide a TCP over multiple HTTP 
over TCP connections.  Bloat to the extreme.

I understand the reasons why it exist, due to the model of HTTP, but 
building more things on top of it heading in the wrong direction IMO.

>
> Dave.

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/