At 13:44 06/11/2008 +0000, Mike Scott wrote:
I beg to differ: I don't think that's at all unreasonable behaviour.
Even if you open a file in OOo just to read it, it is nevertheless
opened in r/w mode, and it therefore needs to be locked because the
system can't read the user's mind -- it might be helpful if there
were an open-read-only facility if this is an issue. So the date
changes are correct.
Sorry, but I think you are missing my point.
o Of course I realise that the file will be opened in edit mode and
will be locked and that no software can guess whether I intend to
edit any file. (I may not even know!) I said nothing that could
possibly have given you the idea that I thought otherwise.
o You talk about the document file and say "the date changes are
correct". But - as I explained - there are no changes to the
modification date of the document file in this case. A change that
doesn't exist cannot be called "correct". And it would not be
correct to show any change in modification date when the file had not
been modified: that much is obvious. OpenOffice 3 gets this right by
*not* making any changes, of course.
o My point was about the change to the modification date of the
*containing folder*. There is no net change to this folder after the
process, but because an understandable, possibly hidden, temporary
change has taken place - indeed, as it transpires, unnecessarily - in
creating and deleting the lock file, the modification date of the
folder suggests that there has been a change. This is hardly likely
to be helpful to users - and very probably confusing.
o If any such changes were deemed correct, you would want all
software to make them - and other software doesn't. In particular,
you would have been complaining that earlier versions of OpenOffice
did not do this (irrespective of the reason for it and your
understanding of this).
Lock files have to exist alongside the original if they're to be any
use in a networked environment - different machines may have
different ideas of the suggested "common location".
Hmm: yes - very likely! I rest my case.
BTW 'dot' files do seem to be a general windows issue: try using
R-click and New|Text File under explorer to create a file called
.xyzzy - it won't do it ("file name needed" or some such).
That's because of Windows' continuing interest in file extensions, of
course: it sees ".something" as a file with an extension of
"something" but no actual file name.
Brian Barker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
