On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:04:10 GMT Adrien Monteleone wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 4:15 AM, Maf. King <m...@chilwell.net> wrote:
> > Making the lock hidden makes good sense, but that would break backward
> > compatability for precisely those users that need a lock the most -
> > different machines with probably different GC versions with data on a
> > network share.
> Other apps have no problem looking for their ‘hidden lock file’ to keep
> users from opening the file more than once from different systems, even
> over a network. The lock file does not need to be visible to the user for
> the app to see it and use it. (commonly accomplished with a preceding “.”
> in the file name or setting a ‘hidden’ flag)
> Certainly, newer versions using the hidden lock file, could easily still
> look for the non-hidden one. Though I suppose if the older version didn’t
> know to look for it, that could be an issue if the non-hidden one weren’t
> already there. However, if a user has different versions of GC on two
> different machines accessing the same data file, they are already asking
> for trouble. Sometimes, backwards compatibility should be broken. This
> might be one of those cases, though it should not be the only break. (it
> should be introduced either with 3.0 if still possible, or held till 4.0)
Absolutely agree, no problem with dot-lock files on a share, I was just
pointing out that a change in locking strategy could have implications, so it
isn't just a case of prepending a dot to the lock file as a quick patch in some
gnucash-user mailing list
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.