Good point Graham, definitely good place to start. If you are interested we can discuss further, privately. Mainly because I want to say some nasty things about implementing sharing and locking resources withouth ipc. :))
cheers, pg On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Graham Jones <your-name-h...@grahamjones.org> wrote: > Guys thanks so much for taking this discussion further than just the reported > bug that prevented the existing workaround. > I’ve often considered putting this work in myself but wasn’t sure what the > reason was for this not being in bash already and if there was an > architectural difficulty with implementing it. It sounds more like that it > just wasn’t considered as an option rather than there is a problem > implementing it. > > Given that ksh only ever worked this way (but its shared history performed > flawlessly)l, I would think that the mechanism they used and particularly how > they handled the locking is a good place to start with. > > GJ > >> On 7 Nov 2014, at 11:29 pm, Piotr Grzybowski <narsil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Named pipes (aka fifos) are notorious for being buggy on Cygwin and >>> non-available on mingw. >> >> thanks Eric. good news. >> so this means, that shared history can only be implemented using >> regular files. is that right? >> >> cheers, >> pg >
