> -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 August 2003 23:27 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: [PATCH] mbox mail repository > > > Jason, > > I missed it if the in-memory form is only necessary in memory > for POP3 operations. So you are saying that for archiving > operations, it is scalable as long as no one ever opens it > through James? Since I perceive that to be the primary use > for mbox, that might be OK. Correct. However, as you pointed out this is less than ideal. > > If you don't think that dotlocking would be too much effort, > it might be worthwhile in terms of making the code more > general. FWIW, http://bluezoo.org/knife/ has a link to an > mbox JavaMail provider, which implements dotlocking, if you > want to see how Chris did mbox and maildir. I'll put in the dot-locking and do a proper job. :) I will also convert the in-memory stuff to be more file based. My original system relied on a different way of identifing the email in the file so I'm quite happy to change it to make it more scalable. Once I get the mbox format working I'll implement maildir as I *much* prefer that to the crappy mbox format. > > Your call as to what you think best for the moment. :-) > Eventually, I think that we want James to be configurable to > be compatible with the widest range of mail tools. > > --- Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Webb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:37 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: [PATCH] mbox mail repository > > > On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 04:59, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Jason, > > > > Is there something you can do to address the scalability? I didn't > realize > > until I read through it that you keep the entire mbox in > core during > > operation. That would prevent it from being used to archive mailing > lists, > > since those files could grow quite large. > > > Correct, and as you pointed out less than ideal. > However, the mbox is only read into memory when someone wants > to read it via James (POP3). If you just want it to store > messages then they just get appended to the current mbox file > (on disk). > > I also have a plan B. I could treat the mbox file like an > ISAM file and do all the operations on disk. The only thing > I'd have to store in memory would be the keys. Then I would > have to write dot-locking as the risk of a collision with > another mbox updater would be that much greater. This would > be slower, but it would work. > > Opinions? > > --- Noel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
