So just use all of the wonderful syncronization stuff we have in Racket for that! The file system as syncronization operation is sooo low level (ahm, "inconvenient" ;)
Robby On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:30:08 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> > 15 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> > > Is there anything else in the main distribution that is uses >> > > `rename-file-or-directory' for atomic update? >> > >> > Is the handin-server's use kosher? There are three uses of it, >> > and the only one that looks suspicious is the last one, where >> > "ATTEMPT" is renamed to "SUCCESS-0". >> >> Those are directories, and you can't move to an existing directory >> name on any platform, right? >> >> I think the handin server probably depends on non-concurrent handins >> for a given account, though, since it shuffles many files and >> directories around. Probably it should use some sort of lock to >> enforce non-concurrency. > > I think that it does, but I don't remember... In any case, it sounds > like if some locking is necessary it will be made obvious by an > exception. > > > Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote: >> >> In general, it seems like the handin server can safely make the >> assumption that there is only one sever running for a given >> directory and thus can do all of the syncronization at the Racket >> level (unlike the preferences file). > > Yeah, the issue is not multiple servers, but the single server trying > to run two concurrent submissions. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
