A message can leave the spool if the state is GHOST... (to answer your question) OR if there are no more recipients associated with that message.
I forget whether you said you had read over the code, but the suggerstion you're making to keep messages in memory across processors would take a lot of code refactoring. The threads, processor configuration, and mailet and matcher loading are all really geared to treat processors as independently operating entities. -- Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com/ Shilpa Dalmia wrote: > I'm trying to avoid reading & writing from the persistent store in the spool > everytime messages are passed from 1 processor to another. Currently since > the message is renamed after each processor, it is rewritten to the spool > which is a performance hit. This renaming needs to be done as the message > gets removed from the spool when it leaves the processor. Now, if we do not > rename the message & remove the message only if it has finished processing > (check the state is GHOST), we avoid rewriting to the spool. So my question > was that is this assumption right that the message always ends with GHOST > state? Would there be any other repurcussions in not renaming the message? > In addition to this, we can also introduce a memory cache, so that the mail > is written to persistent store only once (useful for retries etc) & all > subsequent read & writes (of the message & the message header) are done in > memory. > > Shilpa Dalmia > > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:33 PM > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: writing mails to the spool store in between processors > > > I think we're talking in circles. What problem are you trying to solve? > We can go from there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
