←back to thread

How IMAP works under the hood

(blog.lohr.dev)
230 points michidk | 1 comments | 29 Mar 25 09:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.274s | source
Show context
therein ◴[31 Mar 25 09:28 UTC] No.43532935[source]▶
Interesting no attempt has been made to make it at least be less heavy on networked bytes. Especially since it is old and was meant to be used on a connection with no compression or encryption.

HasChildren could have been Parent, HasNoChildren could have been Leaf or Child. And so many more things.

replies(9): >>43533215 #>>43533340 #>>43533359 #>>43533375 #>>43533379 #>>43534129 #>>43534618 #>>43535965 #>>43537720 #
1. nirui ◴[31 Mar 25 10:42 UTC] No.43533379[source]▶
Probably wrong context, but the more code I wrote, more I like the these `Has`+Noun style naming than just Noun. Reading `HasChildren` will give you a clearer expectation of what the function would do and return, while `Parent` gives far weaker indication.

Maybe they thought the same when they were designing the protocol.

Also, in the context of email, given the size of each mail (including headers and body), these bytes "waste" maybe insignificant.