Sorry, but I don't see it this way...
Posted Mar 15, 2009 22:08 UTC (Sun) by khim
In reply to: Atomicity vs durability vs reliability
Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
I'm yet to see anyone who asks Microsoft to never go beyond the spec.
It'll be just insane: if you can not ever add anything beyond what
the spec says how any progress can occur?
When Microsoft is blamed it's because Microsoft
1. Does not implement spec correctly, or
2. Don't say what's the spec requirements and what's extensions.
When Microsoft says "JNI is not sexy so we'll provide RMI instead" the
ire is NOT about problems with RMI. Lack of JNI is to blame.
I don't see anything of the sort here: POSIX does not require to make
open/write/close/rename atomic but it certainly does not forbid this. And
it's useful thing to have so why not? It'll be best to actually document
this behaviour, of course - after that applications can safely rely on it
and other systems can implement it as well if they wish. We even have nice
flag to disable this extensions if someone wants this :-)
to post comments)