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: 103376,80b3e504140e89fd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-20 09:36:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D1204B5.4620F160@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: <3D0FAC67.A4861809@san.rr.com> <3D10B6B1.AFE9D4E8@san.rr.com> <3D10E046.E604231D@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:36:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1024591001 66.75.151.160 (Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:36:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:36:41 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26499 Date: 2002-06-20T16:36:41+00:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > Let's see. You have two instances of "text_edit", sharing one config > file. That is explicitly forbidden by requirement 1. Then requirement one should speak of concurrent use, rather than simultaneous use. :-) > This is a race condition. Suppose two processes happen to start a > "flush" operation "at the same time"? Whichever goes last wins. That would be simultaneous use. ;-) > If you feel that makes Config_Files totally useless, I guess we can > talk about removing requirement 1 and see if we can come up with > locking semantics to fix it. But I'd rather not, especially since the > registry and gconf have already done that. I don't know that we need locking semantics. I just thought it would be easy to apply the changes and merge them appropriately. For that matter, you're going to have a similar problem if you have two threads in the same program doing this. Certainly it at least has to be made clear in the specs. > > OK. I'd misinterpreted, thinking you meant only one process could read or > > write at a time, rather than only one process could be using a configuration > > at a time. > > Ok, I guess I need to make that clearer. I thought one implied the > other :). Your example is more complex than I had in mind; I'll try to > include something like it in the final rationale document. OK. I'm just trying to have ideas about problems before anyone puts a lot of work into something, only to find out that the end-users find it too unintuitive to use. Something like "list API" is one thing, since only programmers who read the instructions are going to see that. Something like a config file where the user can set configurations is another thing. Perhaps it's worth having an option to create a lock file of some sort. > But I want _you_ to pick a format, so we can get consensus. Hmm. You said > above either is ok; I guess that counts as consensus for the Java > property format. Yes. I've been pushing towards something where there are minimal syntactic interdependencies between keys, rather than something like XML. I'm more concerned about precise semantics than about the niggly details of the file format, tho. -- 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.