[Imap-protocol] SELECT/EXAMINE clarification of UNSEEN
tss at iki.fi
Wed Nov 16 06:43:45 PST 2011
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:35 +0100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:38 PM, "Timo Sirainen" <tss at iki.fi> wrote:
> > Sounds like you're talking about your specific implementation, since I can't really think of why any of the above would be a problem or why there would be any need of blocking. I've actually thought of a way to create zero-lock-waits IMAP-compliant mailbox format on POSIX filesystems that do atomic writes with O_APPEND (practically all apparently), so I'm sure any blockers can be worked around.
> Teah - allowing gappyness certainly offers some nice properties.
There's no gappyness.
> But, I don't see how you can allow reads to see the messages until they are fully committed and indexed and "durable" for whatever level of guarantee you require. And because of that, I don't see how you can allow writes without ordering
> enforcement of "this commit is guaranteed to complete".
> * session A starts a write, gets GUID 101
> * session B starts a write, gets GUID 102
The messages don't get a (G)UID until they are complete and being
> * session B completes the write and return GUID 102 to its caller.
More information about the Imap-protocol