Hello, I'm currently trying to increase overall efficiency of the Distributed > James server. >
I have some concerns but i feel imposterish for posting them as they most likely come from my own lack of knowledge, i'll still try just in case some of points are valid :) - `users` we rely on LWT for throwing "AlreadyExist" exceptions. LWT > are likely unnecessary as the webadmin > presentation layer is offering an idempotent API (and silents the > AlreadyExist exceptions). Only the CLI (soon to be deprecated for Guice products) makes this distinction. So from a user perspective adding a user would always succeed. But would it succeed by doing nothing (the current behaviour in silencing the AlreadyExist exception) or would it succeed by effectively overwriting the user (in a last write wins manner) ? This is a completely different behaviour which is not necessarily desirable. this can be further divided into 2 different cases : - there are concurrent attempts to create the same user (in which case the user data is very likely the same or very close, and has possibly never been exposed to a human) in which case the LWW behaviour may be acceptable - A user has existed for a long time (definition of long to be defined but I would say above a few seconds :) ) in which cas overwriting is most likely not acceptable > - `domains` we rely on LWT for throwing "AlreadyExist" exceptions. LWT > are likely unnecessary as the webadmin > presentation layer is offering an idempotent API (and silents the > AlreadyExist exceptions). Only the CLI > (soon to be deprecated for Guice products) makes this distinction. > Discussions have started on the topic and a proof of > concept is available. > same as above Why it would be ok to drop LWT for ACL updates only to replace it by eventsourcing when you write: >LWT are required for `eventSourcing`. As event sourcing usage is limited to low-usage use cases, the performance degradations are not an issue. Doesn't that mean that ACLs would still rely on LWT but within an additional layer ? Also for ACLs isn't eventual consistency acceptable ? using transactions to avoid non serial writes but accepting stale reads ? That's the limit of my understanding : all the flags/UID/IMAP concerns are beyond my current knowledge but I'll enjoy reading the comments :) jean
