Somehow that ended up backwards from what I think would be the goal,
which is to have only one folder_read() on large folders. Would
this work: add, and default to, -lock? If a user trusts themself
to do only one operation at a time, and they want the speed, they
could use -nolock.
I think we always want to make sure the sequence file is consistent, right?
To me the choice is between "two calls to folder_read()" and "one call
to folder_read() but have it locked during the complete command run".
For a web front end, the latter choice makes more sense. I would argue
that the former choice makes more sense for the average user.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers