On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Marcel Crasmaru wrote: >--- Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> C2, of course, wins in this case if it just gets and holds the mailbox >> lock first. In fact, in this case C1 has *no* chance of ever deleting the >> message if it loses the first race. >Yes, but it is a different situation. A lock in the protocol gives >explicit concurrency control. >Anyway, IMAP is not SQL :) and maybe explicit locking is not >a wise idea right now. IMHO, for an IMAP server developer explicit >locking may be a fancy feature, but if I were an IMAP client >developer for small devices I would like to have an explicit >concurrency control.
You get the best concurrency in a system that is designed so that no locking is needed for writing nor reading (for instance, with mail delivery to a Maildir). If IMAP would introduce an explicit locking mechanism, I would have to claim it was a step back in terms of the protocol's evolution. :-) Rather define (or discover) semantics that allow one to avoid locking altogether. Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen http://www.bincimap.org/
