XOVER ranges

Jeffrey M. Vinocur jeff at litech.org
Fri Apr 4 19:49:58 UTC 2008


On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:

> You're allowed to do whatever you want from an RFC perspective.  It's a
> lot cleaner in some respects to freeze the client understanding of the
> group at the time you enter the group and have to leave and re-enter to
> see new articles, and I think some clients already deal with this.

Right, it looks like this is what we currently are trying to do, except in 
CMDxover() where we sometimes but unpredictably update the high watermark 
depending on what articles the client has requested.


> Otherwise, you probably want to periodically in nnrpd re-get group
> statistics for the group to update the watermarks in nnrpd as well.
>
> I'm not sure if showing articles with higher numbers than GROUP reported
> will confuse some clients.

*sigh*  It wouldn't be very hard to have nnrpd update itself as part of 
the commands that require it (NEXT, XOVER, XHDR might be the only ones).

I don't want to break anything, but the more I think about it, the more I
think it is incorrect for the client to be able to say XOVER 1-10, and
only get headers from 8 articles because that was what existed when it
entered the group, even though articles 9 and 10 now exist.  Particularly
because clients that use multiple simultaneous connections will
potentially be able to see those articles on some connections but not on 
others.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org


More information about the inn-workers mailing list