[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2002/10/10]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:29:53PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: > what I'm thinking is that a Storage implementation has to implement > > set_config (or preference, since that's what it actually is) > get_config > del_config > thoughts? comments? The first thought I had was "Do you want some sort of atomic update config?" on the assumption that currently an update is get <change> set My second thought was does it matter? However, is there any sort of sanity locking - presumably a race condition can exist where (say) two e-mails both requesting configuration changes can arrive, execute simultaneously: get1, get2 change 2, change 1 set1, set2 and if change 2 and change 1 are different partial changes to the configuration hen they might be contradictory, and result in a mess. just a thought. Nicholas Clark
Generated at 13:56 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52