Re: [bug-mailutils] POP3 code changes

[Jeff Bailey]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 06:18:10PM -0500, Alain Magloire wrote:
> > 
> > > I missed something along the way here - Why would we drop support for
> > > thread-safety?
> > 
> > Really, why would we? Another question is, it is not proven the

> It is hard to get right and the overall complexity could not be worth.
> Lots of mail applications non-threaded.

I would argue then for at least coarse locking.  Both the MUAs I've used
recently (evolution and mozilla) are very threaded.  I think it would be
fine to have a global lock that we called on entering the code, and an
unlock on exit.

> > libmailbox is thread-safe. We do have provisions for cancellation
> > points, but have we tested this? I mean have anybody tried to
> > use libmailutils in a real multithreaded application?

> Yes, it was tested on an application call "phemail" (it was rename,...
> marketing did not like the sound of it, the developers tried PMS ...
> (Photon Mail System) but for some reason PMS, did not survive either).

ROFL!

> complexity is an exponential for the number of bugs, the size and
> the maintainance nightmare ... Should be able to make some sort
> of mathematic equations with this.

Would a very simple locking mechanism like I propose be good enough?