On Jul 16, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Steven McPhelan wrote:
You're right. Taking a look at Ed de Moel's site, I see For each openargument, the Open command attempts to seize exclusive ownership of the specified device. Open performs this function effectively instantaneously as far as other processes are concerned; otherwise, it has no effect regarding the ownership of devices and the values of the device parameters. If a timeout is present, the condition reported by $Test is the success of obtaining ownership. If no timeout is present, the value of $Test is not changed and process execution is suspended until seizure of ownership has been successfully accomplished by the process that issued the Open command. It's sensible that an attempt to open a device that is busy should block, but what if the OPEN cannot succeed on semantic grounds (e.g., an attempt to open a connection to a non-routable address)? It seems to me that raising an error ought to be appropriate here. Gregory Woodhouse "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." --Albert Einstein (1879-1955) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
