mapping files to objects

[Marcus G. Daniels]

>>>>> "KM" == Kelly Murray <kem@Franz.COM> writes:

KM> Well, I'll repeat myself *one more time* and say you don't need a
KM> POS to write a object-based SMTP server, or any all-object-based
KM> programs.  You can just have a process running that holds all your
KM> mail objects, and checkpoint it when you make any significant
KM> changes in case it crashes, or the UNIX it's running on crashes or
KM> is powered off. 

How does each process keep providing service while checkpointing is
occuring?  Even with a multithreaded implementation, I don't see how
this could be done without a stopping the world and a painful
intrusion. It seems like redundant archivers would be needed to help
ensure that service would always be available (and as soon as there
are multiple processes, there is the problem of consolidating the
information they are archiving).

I think you guys are talking about two different kinds of compromises.
Kelly doesn't want to fuss with the crufty indirection of a
filesystem, and Chris sees the filesystem as a practical necessity for
a stable work environment.