On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 21:25 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > or you could actually call sync() directly from the save() method once > your done with your writing (*),
Urgh; wow, synching the whole system (though fsync tends to end up doing this on ext2/ext3 anyway) is also a bit extreme, certainly inelegant and osl (luckily) has no abstraction for that ;-) > that push up some implementation details... but that still would be a > less ugly than the hack above Well - an open-fsync-close triplet, is not as bad as a 20second regression on first-start from the bus-load of gross-ness that is done in desktop's setup / migration code ;-) > (*) I'm assuming here that this sync really matter only when saving > 'documents'... and that we could live without it for other write... Sure - the only problem is is trying to push the semantic: 'we want to fsync' through the multiple layers of abstractions ;-) Stephan - for example, can we inherit UNO structs and be sure the new version is correctly co-erced into the old one in other places ? [ that might be helpful ] ATB, Michael -- michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice