[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] A Daemon Alternative
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2005-10-13 23:23:37
Message-ID: 200510140123.38092 () erwin ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 13 October 2005 10:07, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:40:30PM +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:13, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> > > So there would be only one instance of every resource? Or would
> > > every application have its own instance? With the latter we've
> > > gained nothing because the data are in memory n times again.
> >
> > There would only be one instance of the resource communicating with
> > the server. The apps would work directly on the cached data
> > (probably through a thin API layer).
>
> So the scenario is
>
>   enduser application   resource daemon ++++++++> groupware server
>                \         /
>                   Cache
>
> But how would change notification and locking work when you have a
> cache that can be accessed by several applications?
> Can you remember the problems we had with filesystem based locks?
> Filesystem based notification can't be used as well, since not all
> KDE supported operating systems provide a fast interface for it.

Maildir needs no locking. That's why Mark proposed to use it or=20
something similar. Read
http://www.qmail.org/qmail-manual-html/man5/maildir.html
and
http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html.

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]