james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Serge Knystautas <ser...@lokitech.com>
Subject Re: Rationale behind explicit setLastUpdated in MailImpl writeobject sought.
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:53:52 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>My idea was to always do an outgoing.accept(0) and set the Mails
> lastUpdated
>>to currentTimeMillis+the next delay for that mail-
>>MailImpl.writeObject always does a lastUpdated=new Date() prior to
>>the actual storing of the object, which effectly prevents me from
>>dating the mail into the future.
>>What is the rationale behind this?
> lastUpdated is also a useful diagnostic that I would not want to lose.

I don't think he's suggesting removing this... just preventing mailets 
from modifying it.

> Mind you, I'd also like to see Spool.accept() return the message, not the
> key.  There are exactly two calls to Spool.accept()/accept(long) in James.
> In both cases, we immediately follow up by retrieving the message, but we
> have a much more complex synchronization process because of the two stage
> access method.


But to address the fundamental challenge, I would say this is a good use 
of mail attributes.  Sounds like we would need to provide a query 
interface on the repository for this, but really you want to set a date 
on the mail that is not last updated, but independent of any data we 
store right now.

Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message