On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 at 22:57, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 12Mar2009 22:09, Martin v. L?wis <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
| > Let me try some examples.
| > Suppose I'm running my applications on a laptop and I don't want the
| > disk to be spinning continually while I work. I'm willing to take the
| > risk of data loss in order to extend my battery life.
|
| So when you select "Save" in your application, would you like the data
| to be saved, or would you accept that they get lost?
Often, I will accept that they get lost. Why? Because that will only
happen with and OS/hardware failure, and I expect those to be close to
never.
I think you are an atypical user, then. People can accept that data is
lost if the machine crashes at the moment of saving. They get certainly
puzzled if the data is lost if the machine crashes 30 seconds after they
have saved, and not even a backup copy is available anymore.
The typical user is probably not all that surprised when Windows loses
their data. They probably figure Windows took more than 30 seconds
to complete the save :) :)
Seriously, though, the point is that IMO an application should not be
calling fsync unless it provides a way for that behavior to be controlled
by the user.
--
R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
