Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!udel!new
From: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: File Requesters
Keywords: REENTRANT FILE REQUESTERS
Message-ID: <15008@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 9 May 89 17:09:09 GMT
References: <6342@ardent.UUCP> <103440@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <3795@sugar.hackercorp.com> <11584@well.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@udel.EDU
Reply-To: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 11

In article <11584@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes:
>Is a filename equivalent to a lock?  A lock would have the advantage that
>the file won't go away while you're waiting to process it, but a name
>would have the advantage that you could handle the exceptions yourself.
>What's the tradeoff here?

One obvious problem with returning a Lock is that the file must exist
for you to lock it. If I want a "Save File" requester, this is clearly
unacceptable. Possibly yet another flag to indicate whether locks or
names should be returned is appropriate, given that we are
building the Ultimate File Requester (tm). -- Darren