On Sunday 14 October 2001 13:43, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> #if Cornelius Schumacher
>
> > - Locking mechanism to support concurrent access to the address
> > book by multiple processes, including notification on change of
> > addressbook by other process.
>
> Would it be possible to do per-record locking instead, or to
> eliminate locking and just merge changes ?

Per-record locking could be done by splitting up the file and store one 
record per file, but this would also complicate the API. Is this really 
worth it? What are the advantages?

Merging changes can be quite difficult, if different changes have been 
done to the same record. This might not be possible without user 
interaction and even then you need the locking for the time of the 
merge.

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@kde.org>