On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:29:15 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> 30 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> > >> > Unfortunately (again), the lock file has to exist alongside the data >> > file, and our existing preferences files are not accompanied by lock >> > files. It's no good assuming that you don't need the lock if there's >> > no lock file present, because the lock file might get created in >> > between the time that you try to use the lock file and the time that >> > you try to open the preferences file. >> >> Why not always use such a lock file, creating it if it's not there -- >> and then you can open it once per process, and lock/unlock it for each >> read/write of the actual file. Does this fail somehow? > > That's a good idea. It's a little bit of option 1, in that a reader > will sometimes need to write a file --- but only in the transitional > case of dealing with an existing preference file without a lock file.
Also, I think we would have had to do that regardless, unless we wanted the installation process to create the lockfile or something. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
