Marcel Crasmaru writes:
... if I were an IMAP client developer for small devices I would like
to have an explicit concurrency control.
What benefits would that give? I see only disadvantages.
--Arnt
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Marcel Crasmaru wrote:
>--- Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> C2, of course, wins in this case if it just gets and holds the mailbox
>> lock first. In fact, in this case C1 has *no* chance of ever deleting the
>> message if it loses the first race.
>Yes, but it is
--- Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > C1: a1 lock_the_selected_mailbox
> > S : a1 OK mailbox is yours
> [snip]
>
> C2, of course, wins in this case if it just gets and holds the mailbox
> lock first. In fact, in this case C1 has *no* chance of ever deleting the
> message if it loses t
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Marcel Crasmaru wrote:
> As one may see, C1 can not
> physically delete the message 1
> if odds are against it. An
> explicit locking mechanism may
> help:
>
> C1: a1 lock_the_selected_mailbox
> S : a1 OK mailbox is yours
[snip]
C2, of course, wins in this case if it just get
Marcel Crasmaru writes:
Please let me know if there was any attempt to make explicit locking
of mailboxes an IMAP extension.
...
As one may see, C1 can not physically delete the message 1 if odds are
against it. An explicit locking mechanism may help:
That's a rather contrived example. Can you come
Please let me know if there was any attempt
to make explicit locking of mailboxes an IMAP
extension. I can see some advantages in having an explicit
locking mechanism (and alas, some disadvantages too).
Maybe you discussed already the
implications of this idea, and you can point
the threads deal
