[imp] Making IMP the first page

[René Lund Jensen]

> You point your webserver to /home/httpd/html/horde/imp
> then you make a symlink, called horden, your imp directory that points on
> step backward (ie. to /home/httpd/html/horde).

Sorry.... your symlink should be called horde

 René Jensen            _\|/_
 Tingbjergkollegiet  (@ @)  lundeman@tbkol.dk
 --------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo--------------
 If you have to get used to it.....
                                ... it´s not good enough !!




>From chuck@horde.org Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 14:26:03 -0500
Return-Path: <chuck@horde.org>
Mailing-List: contact imp-help@lists.horde.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list imp@lists.horde.org
Received: (qmail 50824 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 19:26:52 -0000
Received: from r93aag000369.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO marina.horde.org) (209.6.192.126)
  by horde.org with SMTP; 7 Jan 2001 19:26:52 -0000
Received: by marina.horde.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
	id 95DB339F2; Sun,  7 Jan 2001 14:26:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 192.168.0.160 ( [192.168.0.160])
	as user chuck@marina by marina.your.mom with HTTP;
	Sun,  7 Jan 2001 14:26:03 -0500
Message-ID: <978895563.3a58c2cb73cc7@marina.your.mom>
Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 14:26:03 -0500
From: Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>
To: Maher Hourani <mitch@wisol.com>
Cc: imp@lists.horde.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 2.3.6-cvs
Subject: Re: Imp 2.3 

Quoting Maher Hourani <mitch@wisol.com>:

> Any news when 2.3 will be released?
> I know you guys are working pretty hard on it, but we really need a date,
> in order to decide for which software we go for....

There are a few kinks that need to be worked out, and two large issues: how 
clean we want to be the IMP/Horde API break, and a translation framework.

The API break is a trade-off: either we spend more time up front and work out 
the various APIs, remove anything IMP-specific from Horde, or we get 2.3 out 
quicker but it won't last as long because it won't be insulated from changes in 
Horde.

The translation stuff is basically a need for someone to step up and get us a 
decent gettext framework so that translators can start working on .po files.

Unfortunately, I can't put dates on either of these. What kind of time frame 
are you looking at?

-chuck

--
Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org>
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the chicken!" - Baby Blues


>From chuck@horde.org Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 16:40:08 -0500
Return-Path: <chuck@horde.org>
Mailing-List: contact imp-help@lists.horde.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list imp@lists.horde.org
Received: (qmail 62554 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 21:40:58 -0000
Received: from r93aag000369.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO marina.horde.org) (209.6.192.126)
  by horde.org with SMTP; 7 Jan 2001 21:40:58 -0000
Received: by marina.horde.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
	id 11B1C39F2; Sun,  7 Jan 2001 16:40:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 192.168.0.160 ( [192.168.0.160])
	as user chuck@marina by marina.your.mom with HTTP;
	Sun,  7 Jan 2001 16:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <978903608.3a58e238cb603@marina.your.mom>
Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 16:40:08 -0500
From: Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>
To: imp@lists.horde.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 2.3.6-cvs
Subject: Re: [imp] suggestions, IMP 2.3

Quoting Troy Grady <troy@gradylevkov.com>:

> 1) Selecting/refreshing a mailbox is still a little confusing given thatthere 
> are three ways to do this on any particular screen.  On the INBOX screen, 
> for example, you've got the INBOX button on the toolbar, the mailbox 
> <select> box, and the mailbox refresh icon.  On an INBOX message 
> screen, you've got the toolbar INBOX button, the mailbox <select> box, and 
> the "back to INBOX" hyperlink.  You could do all this with just the <select>
> box and a "go" button next to it.   Which brings me to...

I'm curious what other people think of this. I could do without the INBOX link, 
but people asked for it, and I'm kind of used to it now. I think having 
the "back to" and "refresh" links makes sense, since they do slightly different 
things than the folder selector does (refresh keeps you on the same page, and 
back to inbox takes you to the page of the mailbox that the message you were 
reading is on).

> 3)  Paging through searches on medium/big mailboxes is slow.  I gather 
> that this is because IMP does not save search results as state, but rather 
> re-searches each time you page through the search results.  So even 
> when the search results are small, the paging is slow if the mailbox you're
> searching is big.  Which brings me to...

That's correct. I suppose it would be possible to not re-run the search unless 
the user clicked refresh... but that might not be very intuitive. Thoughts?

> 4)  ...big mailboxes.  In my brief test drive, IMP 2.2.3 outperforms IMP 2.3
> on big mailboxes by a wide margin.  We have some ~30,000-message 
> mailboxes, and IMP 2.2.3 is actually the only mail client that can access 
> them.  (Outlook Express, for example, fails downloading the messages 
> somewhere around 10,000.  And who wants to download that many 
> messages anyway?)  Accessing such a mailbox with 2.2.3 takes about 30 
> seconds, while 2.3 takes over 2 minutes.

Is there any chance that you could do some poking around (code, sniffing, 
whatever) and see if you can at least give us a start on where to look? I can't 
think of any reason why this would be, and I generally find 2.3 much faster.

> 5)  I'm using IE 5.0 for Mac, and I can't tab into the "message" <textarea>
> in the compose window.  The cursor makes a full circle of every other 
> element on the page but never hits the "message" box.  This works fine in 
> 2.2.3.

There's some javascript that that needs to be looked at there.

-chuck

--
Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org>
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the chicken!" - Baby Blues


>From anil@recoil.org Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 22:23:51 +0000
Return-Path: <anil@recoil.org>
Mailing-List: contact imp-help@lists.horde.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list imp@lists.horde.org
Received: (qmail 63842 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 22:23:53 -0000
Received: from total.recoil.org (212.25.240.40)
  by horde.org with SMTP; 7 Jan 2001 22:23:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 29540 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jan 2001 22:23:51 -0000
Received: from dsl-212-135-236-198.dsl.easynet.co.uk ( [dsl-212-135-236-198.dsl.easynet.co.uk])
	as user avsm@localhost by horde.recoil.org with HTTP;
	Sun,  7 Jan 2001 22:23:51 +0000
Message-ID: <978906231.3a58ec77384bb@horde.recoil.org>
Date: Sun,  7 Jan 2001 22:23:51 +0000
From: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>
To: imp@lists.horde.org
References: <978903608.3a58e238cb603@marina.your.mom>
In-Reply-To: <978903608.3a58e238cb603@marina.your.mom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 2.3.6-cvs
Subject: Re: [imp] suggestions, IMP 2.3

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>:

> I'm curious what other people think of this. I could do without the INBOX
> link, but people asked for it, and I'm kind of used to it now. I think having 
> the "back to" and "refresh" links makes sense, since they do slightly
> different things than the folder selector does (refresh keeps you on the 
> same page, and back to inbox takes you to the page of the mailbox that 
> the message you were reading is on).

I'd actually vote for putting the little refresh icon on as many pages
as possible, to be consistent.  It's already in the mailbox and navigator,
and it couldn't do any harm to place it on the message screen (where 
refreshing would obviously just refresh the message view).

It's less useful in the message view than in the others, but does still
have a use (if message flags change), and it would be far more consistent
and allow the user to get used to it.

Incidentally, with a large number of mailboxes, the select box is a 
pain to use quickly, and the INBOX and refresh links are very useful!

> 
> Is there any chance that you could do some poking around (code, sniffing, 
> whatever) and see if you can at least give us a start on where to look? I
> can't think of any reason why this would be, and I generally find 2.3 
> much faster.

I've been meaning to do this for some time: stick my Courier-IMAP into 
debug mode and just look for unnecessary IMAP traffic in a typical mail
browsing session.  Only thing I can think of is that we retrieve the folder
list for the top select box every time (or is that in the session now?)

-- 
Anil Madhavapeddy, <anil@recoil.org>