Brian Barker wrote:
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
Mmmm. That's not what I intended, apologies if I was unclear: I /meant/
my comment to refer to date changes on the directory, not the document.
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.
Directories can change date for other reasons; I rather doubt anyway
that most users ever bother to check them, as opposed to /document/ dates.
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).
Only if I'd noticed :-)
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.
One could argue forever over the rights and wrongs of that. I dislike
XP's approach - because for one thing I can't create a new (unix) dot
file on the samba share - although, inconsistently, XP will let me open
an existing one. There's a sure cure though, not so far off now :-)
--
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(mike -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)
(Processing of this email by 3rd parties in relation to advertising
services is forbidden.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
