| |||||||||||||
3 out of 4?3 out of 4?Posted Mar 18, 2009 7:22 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Better than POSIX? by bojan Parent article: Better than POSIX? You seem to think that:
(Log in to post comments)
3 out of 4? Posted Mar 18, 2009 8:46 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Very funny :-)
Look, it is completely up to you to believe what you want of course. I will do the same. OK?
3 out of 4? Posted Mar 20, 2009 5:02 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
I'm personally in agreement.
The applications are expecting behavior POSIX does not provide.
It's fine to use a pattern that doesn't request the data be on disk, but you should write the app to deal with the lack of the data being on disk.
This is what I've done many times, in my own software authoring.
Congratulations Posted Mar 20, 2009 11:52 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I am sure you also run your Bash console in POSIX mode, never use ls with long options, and only use cp with the four-and-a-half POSIX options. Congratulations. The rest of the world is not so spartan.I hope I don't have to use your software that fsync()s after every file operation. Mistaking durability with atomicity can have dire consequences both for durability and for atomicity. Besides, you are not a lurker and this is not email.
|
|||||||||||||