Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(June 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: New snapshot and more questions
From: Brock Rozen <brozen @ webdreams . com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 03:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Cc: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>, majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <v03102825afd202dd8891@[207.167.80.70]>

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:

> >I think caches are useful, but should remain optional.
> 
> You know, I *really* like the idea of being able to define N caches,
> where N is from 0 to the number of lists out there on the server, and
> then assign lists to caches. That way, lists of a related nature (like
> my Sharks, sharks-chat, sharks-tickets) can do duplicate checking,
> since I *do* tell people not to crosspost. But a list should only be in
> 0 or 1 cache. I don't see any real use to going to multiple caches for
> a list or a system-wide cache. I'd guess the systemwide one would cause
> more problems than it solves given many (most?) setups have lists under
> multiple independent administrators....

What I envision is this:

A list-owner wants to make sure he's not getting cross-posted on the same
system (I don't think we want cross-system checking) and he also doesn't
want dups. Thus, he uses and contributes to the global-cache and his own
cache.

The message-ids get put in the global cache and that's used for
cross-posting. They're also put in the list cache and that's used for
dups. Why put them in twice? Because what if he decides to leave the
global cache, then we don't want him receiving those messages in case
they're sent out three minutes after he leaves.

Assuming he didn't want to check for cross-posting, then he would only use
the list cache. If he didn't care about dups, then he wouldn't use any
cache.

I'm not into this multiple cache thing, although I can see the usage.
Something like that could be used (for example) to make sure there's no
cross-posting on majordomo-users and majordomo-workers but to allow it
between them and list-managers.

It could become a whole big job if you allow infinite caches, and it'd be
more work for the majordomo-owner, on some level. For the beginning, I
think list and global is a good starting off point. We always have 2.1

Thanks,

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 | Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen | 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: New snapshot and more questions
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: message caches
From: Brock Rozen <brozen@webdreams.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: message caches
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Next: RE: New snapshot and more questions
From: Peter Bowyer <pbowyer@verity.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com