* Russ Cox <r...@swtch.com> wrote:
> > what's really wanted here is an atomic create/write/close so that
> > one process (we don't care which one) is responsible for the whole
> > file. i think you could get this behavior by creating a temporary
> > keyfile and then an rename (wstat), which is atomic.
>
> what's really wanted here (and i wrote the code)
> is an atomic open/read/write/close, so that different
> processes can update the file in sequence without
> stepping on or losing each others changes.
> DMEXCL provides that; create+(remove+)wstat does not.
Just curious: can an 9P server cleanly differenciate between clients ?
This would be a great help for transaction isolation, IMHO.
w/o having looked at cookiefs yet, but I would do it like that:
* get cookies by reading /site-cookies/<site>
* set cookies by writing "<site>: foo=bar" to /set pipe
(which can stay open for as long as you want)
This should minimize the amount of messages/roundtrips required in
normal operation and make the client-side really trivial. An non-
blocking write to the "set" file should also reduce latency
(especially when having remote profiles)
cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de
mobile: +49 174 7066481 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
