Re: [Libreoffice] locking semantics ...

Le Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:39:12 +0100, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@suse.com>  
a écrit:

> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 15:23 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > In both cases, just knowing *who* is holding the document open would be  
> > enough.
>
>         'Who' is of course something that we can get incredibly quickly from
> the operating-system, and is already in the file.
>
>         Of course, this doesn't deal with the hacker use-case of having dozens
> of LibO open on lots of different systems, and forgetting where you left
> them all but ... ;-) [ hopefully that is a minority use-case ].
>
>         We already have the user name + account in the .~lock file I guess; but
> we could prolly do quite a lot better here:
>
>         * detecting whether the file is on a network file-system;
>           if not - warning about other users using it is pretty
>           lame ;-)
>                 + the downer being that reliably detecting file-system
>                   type is quite 'fun' - but we do dozens of
>                   lstat walks down the file-system already anyway so ...

Bad idea: Citrix and remote desktops to server allow you to open a local  
file multiple times.

Use case: We maintain a spreadsheet with a history of jobs that ran on a  
server. The spreadsheet is stored on the server since this one is backuped  
;-) and the jobs ran locally too. Using remote desktop, we can be up to 3  
(without cost overhead) to look in the file, and maybe edit it.
Other use case: in a small company, someone share a document from his  
machine for other to review.
So please keep the lock file for local filesystems.

TY

Mathias M
>         * storing the <pid> of the relevant process in the .lock
>           file, such that if the system-names match we can verify if
>           indeed the .lock file is just stale
>
>         * removing .lock files when we select to open a copy, so they
>           don't sit around indefinately causing grief when created.
>
>         * silently deleting lock files if thy are > a week old (and
>           file remains un-touched for that time)
>                 + where 'week' is customiseable by the paranoid
>
>         Or is that highly controversial ? :-) if not, I'll create an 'easy'
> hack or two I guess.
>
>         ATB,
>
>                 Michael.