[Chandler-dev] Chandler IMAP server parcel
travis at osafoundation.org
Tue Jul 11 10:49:03 PDT 2006
Sorry to clog with one more e-mail on this thread, but I realized after
some thought that the solution below doesn't really offer any advantages
over random numbers, and thought I'd update this issue for the purpose
of the list archives.
I've implemented a timestamping solution that makes sure the same uid
isn't used twice, which should do the trick.
Travis Vachon wrote:
>> It's probably a largely theoretical issue, since people don't
>> typically delete & recreate mailboxes at a given path very
>> frequently, but won't hash(UUID()) repeat values at some point?
>> IMAP's uniqueness requirement (for clients to be able to sync a given
>> mailbox without re-downloading the entire message list every time) is
>> that the triple of (mailbox path, mailbox UID validity, message UID)
>> uniquely identifies a given mailbox.
> Right. I just took my solution (a random number from a pretty large
> range) from the twisted network programming essentials book. As a
> point of comparison, Courier-IMAP uses a time stamp. Unless there are
> any objections, I think I'll combine the two (timestamp + random
> number). If you think it would be worthwhile, I could try throwing
> the hash(UUID()) in there too.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
More information about the chandler-dev