- From: Steve Carter <SRCarter@novell.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:50:51 -0700
- To: Mark_Day/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
No, I don't feel that expediency is the issue. Clustering (granularization) is a common
method of handing shared things. In many operating systems the easiest way
to do this is to use byte range locking. It is a quick way of creating a shared
semaphore.
As far as having "problems" with range locking, this can be said of most all mechanisms
that are used. Each mechanism has it's up- and down-side. Sharing a file and allowing
multiple writers (not simultaneous) requires some shared attribute with an owner.
Again, byte range locking has it's place.
-src
>>> <Mark_Day/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com> 02/24/97 08:13AM >>>
Steve Carter wrote:
"I'm suprised that some people think that the reason that I've supported
range locking is because GroupWise uses the feature, GroupWise does not. In
the early days SoftSolutions did, but that is behind us. "
You sound like a person who has learned from experience that byte-range
locking has some problems, and you seem happy to report that GroupWise
doesn't use it.
I can agree that a lot of people and products have used byte-range locking.
Would you agree that it's often been merely expedient, rather than being a
good idea architecturally?
--Mark
!
Received on Monday, 24 February 1997 15:25:30 UTC