[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:40:07 -0400 |
>To make sure I understand this, I will discuss only the the -all case, which is
>all I asked for. (There would appear to be complex interactions between the
>other cases; it would hurt my brain to understand them.)
The more I look at it ... it seems that -all won't work. Right now the
users of locking are:
- Context I/O
- Sequence I/O
- Annotations
- MIME cache
- slocal (updating the duplicate supression database).
The first two are the ones we care about right now.
Context is easy, but the sequences are kept per-folder. I'm assuming you
don't want -all to lock all of the sequences in all of your folders. So
I don't think we can have -all.
--Ken
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, norm, 2012/04/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, Ralph Corderoy, 2012/04/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, Ken Hornstein, 2012/04/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, norm, 2012/04/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2012/04/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, norm, 2012/04/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, norm, 2012/04/28
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking,
Ken Hornstein <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, norm, 2012/04/28
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, Ken Hornstein, 2012/04/29
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/04/29
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, David Levine, 2012/04/26
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking, David Levine, 2012/04/26