Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-arpa!male!pitstop!sundc!netxcom!ewiles
From: ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Problem With Network Disconnects And Locks
Summary: As long as you don't damage it for non-flock() sites.
Message-ID: <1213@netxcom.UUCP>
Date: 25 Apr 89 18:35:54 GMT
References: <5081@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <2222@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles)
Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, VA
Lines: 19

In article <2222@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
					(John G Dobnick) writes:
....[edited]....
>I vote with the BSD-ites who claim flock() is sufficient, and that the lock
>files can be dispensed with.  (Unless someone can convince me they really
>*are* required -- in addition to flock().)

I won't mind if BSD elm versions use only 'flock()', but don't mess up the
lock file mechanism for NON-BSD sites which do not have 'flock()'.  (I'm one
of them.)
					Enjoy!

P.S.  GOOD JOB on ELM 2.2!  The new interface takes some getting used to, but
it's MUCH better than the old one!
-- 
...!hadron\   "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
  ...!sundc\   Schedule: (n.) An ever changing	| NetExpress Comm., Inc.
   ...!pyrdc\			  nightmare.	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
    ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles			| Vienna, VA 22180