- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:41:53 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, François REMY >> <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> I think this cuts to the core of your argument. My vision was to have >>>> a low-level API. Like you say, conflict resolution can be handled so >>>> many ways so I think it's best handled by libraries or by >>>> application-level logic. >>> >>> It's totally fine, but then I'm with Domenic: I would object to any non-atomic function. Any non-atomic function either requires proper hooks to handle its non-atomicity or needs to be removed from the API surface, to avoid the risk of creating a state where a bad API get used because it's built-in, and does more bad than it does good. >> >> The only non-atomics that we have are: >> >> * move() between different filesystems. > > and also move() when there's already a folder using the same name at the specified location, and therefore conflicts. That's still atomic and always fails. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 22:42:51 UTC