From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com (Nicolas Pouillard)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:37:20 +0100
Subject: [sup-talk] 0.5 thoughts
In-Reply-To: <1201279056-sup-4012@south>
References: <1201240480-sup-1977@south>
	<1201241373-sup-5327@tangerine.lanl.gov>
	<1201279056-sup-4012@south>
Message-ID: <1201293322-sup-3362@ausone.local>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Fri Jan 25 17:52:20 +0100 2008:
> Reformatted excerpts from John Bent's message of 2008-01-24:
> > Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Thu Jan 24 22:59:43 -0700 2008:
> > > - Mbox filehandle closing (currently every mbox gets its own
> > > filehandle which is kept open for the duration of the program)
> >
> > Is this a good thing?  I'd rather set my open filehandle limit really
> > high and have them kept open.  Isn't it slower to constantly have to
> > reopen them?  Well, I guess the unusual ones certainly don't need an
> > open handle.
> 
> It will introduce a very minor slowdown, but I don't think it will
> really be that noticeable. And the current approach basically prevents
> people from having large numbers of mbox sources, which is a little
> contrary to the Sup philosophy of "put every email you've ever read in
> one program."

I  don't get link between having a lot of mails and a lot of mbox sources, for
instance  I  have  only  one  big  mbox,  and  don't see the need for multiple
sources (apart these backup considerations).

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/sup-talk/attachments/20080125/cd384fcb/attachment.bin