22 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
22 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi Wed Sep 4 12:52:18 2013
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:51 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Best way to support HTTP PUT based 'push'
|
|
notifications from IMAP?
|
|
In-Reply-To: <a519769d-6db9-4422-a557-1c9c0fdce9ad@flaska.net>
|
|
References: <5225BF8C.7060602@mozilla.com>
|
|
<a519769d-6db9-4422-a557-1c9c0fdce9ad@flaska.net>
|
|
Message-ID: <E09A3CB4-0AD9-45F7-AB5A-D68B30FFAC37@iki.fi>
|
|
|
|
On 4.9.2013, at 22.43, Jan Kundr?t <jkt@flaska.net> wrote:
|
|
|
|
> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 12:53:00 CEST, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
|
|
>> On devices that either have difficulty maintaining persistent TCP connections or have power concerns about doing so, maintaining an IMAP connection for IDLE/NOTIFY purposes is undesirable and it would be great if the IMAP server could generate a notification via other means.
|
|
>
|
|
> I have heard this a couple of times, but there was never a pointer to an article quantifying these claims. I understand that something different than TCP (e.g. an incoming SMS) could have a very different impact on power consumption simply because it utilizes a different part of the radio, but this proposal is about replacing one TCP connection with another one. So, why do you expect that this change will reduce power consumption, and do you have any measurements or other data?
|
|
|
|
My understanding was that this simply replaces each different application polling for data to a single central local application polling for the data. If you're using only one app there's not much difference but for each new app it helps. And in theory you could have that polling app work with non-TCP also but I don't think that's commonly used.
|
|
|
|
|