On Fri, 10 May 2002 12:41:23 -0400, Pete Maclean wrote: > By the way, while thinking about this, a plausible reason did occur to > me. That is that it could be very difficult to implement a multi-message > MOVE in such a way that it always either completely succeeded or completely > failed.
That is a reason, but I was holding that in reserve to kill MOVE in case the more fundamental arguments did not work. > Of course that obstacle could be alleviated either by limiting a > MOVE command to moving a single message or by relaxing the all-or-nothing > requirement and providing feedback on each message moved. I seriously doubt that those who advocate MOVE would be pleased by the former solution. It's the type of solution I would propose as a way of killing MOVE; by providing a MOVE that is of such limited use that it won't be used. The latter solution is an abomination. We've been there, done that, and got the T-shirt with feedback on each message. The result was the all-or-nothing requirement. MOVE is even worse than COPY in this respect in that it is not undoable. There is no way to revert things to the original state with a MOVE that partially succeeded (think about it carefully).
