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 13:03:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal Date: 20 Jun 2002 16:00:03 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <3D0FAC67.A4861809@san.rr.com> <3D10B6B1.AFE9D4E8@san.rr.com> <3D10E046.E604231D@san.rr.com> <3D1204B5.4620F160@san.rr.com> <3D1215A8.719D39C5@nbi.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1024603662 7356 128.183.220.71 (20 Jun 2002 20:07:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2002 20:07:42 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26515 Date: 2002-06-20T20:07:42+00:00 List-Id: Jacob Sparre Andersen writes: > Darren New wrote: > > > > 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 discussion made me think of how my e-mail client works > (typically, I have five running instances of it). It somehow > keeps an eye on changes to the configuration file, so if one > instance has saved a changed configuration, the other > instances will (when they happen to feel like looking at the > configuration file) complain, and ask if I want to use the > in-memory or the disk configuration. > > I don't know how trivial the implementation of this feature > is, but just keeping a copy of the time stamp of the file > with the in-memory configuration would help a bit, although > one also could use a file check-sum. Yes, there are ways to do it. I think we have three choices here: 1) Simply forbid simultaneous and/or concurrent access to a single config file (as the requirements currently state). 2) Allow simultaneous and/or concurrent access, and define the behavior to be similar to Jacob's email program. 3) Allow full concurrent access to keys, the way the registry does. I chose 1) originally to keep things simple, and because it meets my needs. I think we should avoid 3), because it's way too hard (you get into "change notification messages"), and because the registry and gconf already do this nicely. I could go for 2), if enough people think it is important. Or we could agree to do 2) later, after everything else. -- -- Stephe