From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 5 3: 1:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8D314DD3 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:01:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.040 #1) id 11jh4s-0001z3-00; Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:58:42 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Jos Backus Cc: Jos Backus , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ftpd feature: lock file being stored In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:39:29 +0100." <19991105113929.B2328@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:58:42 +0200 Message-ID: <7628.941799522@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:39:29 +0100, Jos Backus wrote: > Scanning the directory for new files, as the aforementioned script does. If > you have more than one script doing this at the same time, both may conclude > that a given file is ``available'' and try to act upon it. Then it's your _script_ that should do careful locking to avoid tripping up over itself, surely? :-) > Inevitably, one of those scripts will fail. Hence my solution. But > maybe I don't quite understand the problem :-) Let me take a step back. I'm not saying that what you're doing to ftpd is wrong. I'm saying that it's probably not worthwhile adding this feature to the stock ftpd when it's such a quirky work-around. I have several local hacks to ftpd which I think are very useful, but I don't think they should be added to FreeBSD's ftpd because they're not general solutions to wide-spread problems. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message