This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Mandatory file locking semantics
- From: Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:18:59 -0600
- Subject: Re: Mandatory file locking semantics
- References: <51A7862F dot 1070507 at etr-usa dot com> <51A7D47E dot 3050502 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <51A7F547 dot 6020509 at etr-usa dot com> <20130531092228 dot GB30659 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51A900EF dot 2020606 at etr-usa dot com> <20130601105741 dot GC30659 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130602103125 dot GE13934 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51ACD415 dot 2090709 at etr-usa dot com> <20130604084815 dot GD19572 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51AF6433 dot 5050104 at etr-usa dot com> <20130605170246 dot GD3250 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
On 6/5/2013 11:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The burden to use it correctly is
on the application developer.
That's always true, for all APIs.
If a design change can make it more likely that application developers
will use it correctly, shouldn't the design be changed?
It's not like anyone is actually depending on this yet. Granted, it's
now present in a release version of Cygwin, but you declared it
preliminary. I don't see that anyone can complain if the design changes
before it's declared stable.
What does the fcntl(F_LCK_MANDATORY) design have to recommend it, other
than "it already exists"?
Understand, I'm not rejecting your gift to the community. If this is
all I can have, I'm glad to have it. This may be your job, but you
aren't my employee, so I don't feel any expectation that you should do
what I want. I'm just asking nicely.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple