From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7624df5e57d09688 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-09 18:33:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news-west.rr.com!cyclone.kc.rr.com!news.kc.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D03E03D.3D79577E@san.rr.com> From: Darren New X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: config files proposal References: <3CFA8E42.B7844253@san.rr.com> <4519e058.0206030656.34c424ff@posting.google.com> <3CFB94A7.A455B8DD@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:33:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1023672808 66.75.151.160 (Sun, 09 Jun 2002 18:33:28 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 18:33:28 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25642 Date: 2002-06-10T01:33:28+00:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > > Darren New 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.