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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no 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: 2002-06-21 17:34:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:55:09 -0400
Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc
Message-ID: <aev7ne$b09$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
References: <uwuswy0qr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D0FAC67.A4861809@san.rr.com>
 <uu1nzw8n3.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D10B6B1.AFE9D4E8@san.rr.com>
 <uznxrun8p.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D10E046.E604231D@san.rr.com>
 <uadpqujxc.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D1204B5.4620F160@san.rr.com>
 <3D1215A8.719D39C5@nbi.dk> <u1yb1u3ek.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <3D123852.1040508@san.rr.com> <3D1289D2.9090107@telepath.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk
X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1024664110 11273 136.170.200.133 (21 Jun 2002 12:55:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jun 2002 12:55:10 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26580
Date: 2002-06-21T12:55:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I'd like to understand how to do some form of file lock-out for simultaneous
access by different processes without immediately getting into some kind of
OS dependant code. I can imagine a variety of semaphore schemes that will
depend on the OS or at least semi-portable facilities, but if the objective
is to to it strictly within the bounds of Ada, I can't think of a way to do
that.

If the goal is pure, portable, run-anywhere Ada code, I'm betting that it
will come down to "Don't do simultaneous access - it would be Bad..."

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:3D1289D2.9090107@telepath.com...
> Darren New wrote:
> > I think "forbid simultaneous access" is fine. But that's not what you're
> > doing. You're doing "screw the user if there's simultaneous access."
> > Kind of the way C "forbids" indexing off the end of an array. ;-)
>
> I'm probably missing something here. How is this worse than the current
> situation with Ada.Text_IO?
>