Brian Milby wrote:
> The stack file isn’t a package. If using an old format, then it may
> have a resource fork.
Anything in the resource for was put there by the developer. Having
been born on Unix. MetaCard (the LC engine's original name) provided
functions for using resources on Mac, but
There may be a way to shell the permissions, but it would require sudo on a Mac
and UAC on Windows. There is a locked flag in both OS I believe... but you
would then have to script saves. An alternative way to semaphore this process
is to have a text file that you increment a number for anytime
-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 1:13 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Bob Sneidar
Subject: Re: Autosaving stacks corrupted on network drives
Okay I think I see what is going on here. A
The stack file isn’t a package. If using an old format, then it may have a
resource fork. The stack is read into memory and the file closed (not sure
how resource fork stuff is handled though).
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:16 PM Mike Kerner via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
I was thinking about the mechanics of this. A stack is really a
folder/bundle, at least on macos/ios, so I wonder if parts of the stack
bundle are open and parts are not, which could really make things
problematic...
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lis
Okay I think I see what is going on here. A Livecode stack, though it appears
to be open in the IDE, is NOT open from the OS point of view. To test this,
create a new livecode stack, save it, then attempt to delete it in the OS while
it's still open in the IDE. If my theory is correct, you shoul
Now if what you're suggesting is that the server OS should manage the
access process so that you cannot have two simultaneous accesses, I would
agree, but my experience has been that it doesn't always work that way.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Mike Kerner
wrote:
> I'm saying that it is pos
I'm saying that it is possible to access the same file from the same share
from multiple machines and leave the file in an indeterminate or corrupted
state, afterwards, especially if both machines accessing the share are
trying to save changes to said file. The purpose of the semaphore would be
to
I thought the OS takes care of that. Are we saying that when saving to a
network share this process of creating the semaphore file does not happen?
Bob S
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 16:01 , Mike Kerner via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Possible solutions:
> 1) Do what LibreOffice does. Create an inv
Yes. Transactions are the individual operations, i.e. an audit trail.
Then if there is corruption in the db, it is able to "play back" the
transactions to recreate it.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, tbodine via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Mark and Trevor, fo
Thanks, Mark and Trevor, for those ideas.
>>Mark wrote:
Split the data out into a separate data file or better into a database
(because most databases use transactions, with greatly minimizes the
probability of corruption).
Does "databases use transactions" mean DBs don't rewrite the entire f
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:03 PM Mike Kerner via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Yes, this especially happens with simultaneous sync tools such as google
> drive (now backup and sync), microsoft ,oneDrive box, and dropbox. There
> are a variety of things that play into this
Yes, this especially happens with simultaneous sync tools such as google
drive (now backup and sync), microsoft ,oneDrive box, and dropbox. There
are a variety of things that play into this annoying behavior, but the most
common one is timing and latency/connectivity. It really gets to be bad if
13 matches
Mail list logo