Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Bron Gondwana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 29/03/2012 1:54:43 a.m.
Subject: Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 02:21:54PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> > On 03/27/2012 02:44 AM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> > > This I guess belongs in the MOVE I-D in terms of reference to CONDSTORE.
> > >
> > > Are there any plans to progress that draft?  It's quite worthwhile IMO.
> >
> > There have been many. I uploaded one now, with text from Witold, Alexey
> > and myself.
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move
 
 
great, thanks!
>  Servers may want to avoid implementing this because atomicity
>  requires holding one or more locks on several mailboxes at the same
>  time.  (This sounds just wrong. COPY requires the same.)
>
> No, COPY doesn't.  You can release the lock on the first mailbox
> after taking all the data required, then obtain the lock on the
> second mailbox.  At this point, it doesn't matter if someone else
> does something to your source messages.
>
> With MOVE, you need to hold the lock on the first mailbox until
> after the APPEND has succeeded, then come back and EXPUNGE them.
 
 
 
it can be optimised for MOVE.  Since you don't need to do a deep file 
copy, but a file system move, as long as the dest folder is in the same 
volume as the source, it's usually a very quick operation - much 
quicker than copy.  Worst case it takes the same time if different 
volumes.
 
So the 2 locks are held a short time only.
 
 
> Bron.