Mandatory file locking semantics

Wed Jun 5 17:19:00 GMT 2013

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