>Somehow that ended up backwards from what I think would be the goal, >which is to have only one folder_read() on large folders. Would >this work: add, and default to, -lock? If a user trusts themself >to do only one operation at a time, and they want the speed, they >could use -nolock.
I think we always want to make sure the sequence file is consistent, right? To me the choice is between "two calls to folder_read()" and "one call to folder_read() but have it locked during the complete command run". For a web front end, the latter choice makes more sense. I would argue that the former choice makes more sense for the average user. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
