32 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
32 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From dkarp at zimbra.com Tue Mar 20 13:42:17 2012
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Dan Karp <dkarp@zimbra.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:48 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] CONDSTORE mod-sequence values
|
|
In-Reply-To: <CABHfyPSq=7hOtH94aet6T=osoXmfVP94iAq6iCCYH3N+MvGmFw@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <1370186682.140190.1332276137465.JavaMail.root@zimbra.com>
|
|
|
|
> From RFC4551 Introduction: "The server MUST guarantee that each STORE
|
|
> command performed on the same mailbox ... will get a different
|
|
> mod-sequence value."
|
|
>
|
|
> Can someone explain why the uniqueness requirement is necessary for
|
|
> the modification sequence? If two metadata items/messages are
|
|
> modified transactionally and share the same mod-sequence I don't
|
|
> really see any way that will break any of the proposed IMAP protocol
|
|
> changes for CONDSTORE (as long as they are updated atomically and a
|
|
> client can't sync between when a first item gets a mod-sequence and
|
|
> a second item gets the same mod-sequence).
|
|
|
|
I *think* that you're incorrectly interpreting "each STORE command" as
|
|
"each message affected by a STORE command". The following command is
|
|
one STORE command, not ten:
|
|
|
|
A001 STORE 1:10 +FLAGS (\Deleted)
|
|
|
|
Your single transactional modification of those ten messages is allowed
|
|
to use the same mod-sequence value.
|
|
|
|
- Dan
|
|
|