Am Donnerstag, den 11.01.2007, 20:14 +0000 schrieb robert burrell donkin: > On 1/11/07, Joachim Draeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 11.01.2007, 18:55 +0000 schrieb robert burrell > > donkin: > > > > > > > > Think of a mbox and pop3. The backend opens the file and indexes it. > > > > > > > > > > that is not conversational state but an optimization > > > > > > > > Right, but without a session there is no possibility for that > > > > optimization. > > > > > > there are different ways which this could be implemented. the current > > > session concept is not necessary and in some cases can be detrimental. > > > > > > a flaw with the current API is that a session is opened before the > > > factory has any idea about what's it's to be asked to do. it is > > > therefore inefficient to perform any optimization when the session is > > > opened. > > > > > > for example, whenever an IMAP session is opened the session > > > pre-emptively caches the UIDs. at this time, the session cannot know > > > whether a particular command will need this information or not. > > > > As I said the last time: This is intended to be done on first use. > > Just lazy initialization on demand. That way you need not know whether > > it is needed or not. > > this is a good example of why i claim that state needs to considered > more carefully. hopefully it may also illustrate why i claim that > session is harmful.
That's not fair. :-( It's just an example for work-in-progress. I explained that I removed the lazy init because there was a problem I hadn't time to investigate further on. Joachim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
