Re: config files proposal

[Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> writes:
> 
> > I think there should also be some sort of tag at the front of each file
> > saying it's an Ada config file, even if only
> >
> >  -- Ada Grace.Config file V1.0 -- Do not hand-edit.
> 
> Part of the point is to _allow_ hand editing :).

Right. But it should still be marked "don't do that". Or maybe "Read manual
before hand-editing". ;-)

> > I think it's an important detail for systems where having a file open
> > changes the semantics for other users.
> 
> Not for config files. These are _explicitly_ not accessible by
> parallel processes.

Um... So, if my config file is open, and thus my backup program doesn't back
it up, is that good or bad? If a program is running that only reads config
files, should I be allowed to copy the config file it uses to a different
directory while it's running?

I'm not just talking about multiple users of the config file API trying to
write at the same time.

> Hmm. Guess I have to allow read-only parallel access if I'm allowing
> system-wide config files. Sigh. Why do things have to be so
> complicated?
> 
> So yes, the file is closed at the end of an open operation.

Yeah. Just so much eaiser. :-)
 
> > If, for example, you leave it open after you write it, it's possible
> > I won't be able to read it.
> 
> Arg. Who gets to write a system config file? This is why I wanted to
> exclude parallel access.

Well, *somebody* has to write it, yes? I'm just saying that not all the
world is UNIX, and not every OS defaults to letting you edit files that are
already open.
 
-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
** http://home.san.rr.com/dnew/DNResume.html **
** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

     My brain needs a "back" button so I can
         remember where I left my coffee mug.