Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu From: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Problem With Network Disconnects And Locks Message-ID: <2242@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> Date: 26 Apr 89 01:47:30 GMT References: <1213@netxcom.UUCP> Sender: news@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Lines: 38 > In article <2222@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu > (John G Dobnick) [me] 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().) From article <1213@netxcom.UUCP>, by ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles): > 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.) I was insufficiently clear in expressing myself. What I *should* have written was "I vote with... inaddition to flock().) The locking method actually used should be configurable, given that the installer presumable knows what is used on his/her system. Leaving the default action as it currently is (use both methods) is fine, as long as the installer can tailor Elm to his/her site's environment." In our case, we would probably trash the lock file and use only flock(). Other sites may wish to do the opposite. I had no intention of suggesting that lock files be "dropped" from the Elm product -- I realize there are multiple and *different* Unix implementations having different facilities and requirements. Giving the sites the facility to select which method is used *is* desirable, though. Sorry for any confusion that I created. -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu UUCP: !uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire