On 1/6/2004 8:39 PM, Tim Showalter wrote: > It's not necessary that partitions should map to NAMESPACE-advertised > parts hierarchy at all. Cyrus allows mailboxes in the same hierarchy > to live on different partitions.
I see what you're saying, but I think that level of abstraction is also somewhere else entirely -- mailstore partitions built on top of (product-specific) database partitions is an interesting architectural discussion point, but maybe shouldn't be a design constraint anymore than an overly-rigid filesystem mapping should be a design constraint. Or was there something more to the statement that I missed? > I can see why you might want filesystems and mailbox hierarchies to > coincide I don't want that explicitly, but where a specific server architecture uses such an architecture, then the benefit is there for the mentioning as an example. In the case of Exchange (as an opposite architecture, but with the same potential) using mailstore partitions would also facilitate some kinds of replication and near-line storage mechanisms, albeit with much greater effort. Really I'm just trying to figure out how useful it would be to have partitions be full-fledged data-objects in IMAP. They are only partial citizens right now, with just a couple of attributes and not much in the way of management knobs and buttons. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
