Hello, Le 16 juil. 2012 à 22:52, David Powell <d...@djpowell.net> a écrit :
In my opinion, on-disk consistency isn't and wasn't a goal. And the spamming of calls to sync does nothing other than make compilation ridiculously slow on file systems that are slow at sync. sync should not have any user visible effects. It just seems to me to be a bit of voodoo code that should be removed. I always comment it out. Is there any test case that fails without it? Search no longer, I think I'm responsible for the addition of this sync() call. When I was working on the Builder of Counterclockwise for Eclipse, I was having weird issues related to the fact that calling the compile function did not guarantee that when compile() returned, the file was immediately visible and entirely written down (accessible for read). So as far as I remember, this was a kind of concurrency problem, not solved despite the existing call to flush(), and the only guarantee for the behavior was in calling sync(). We did not expect the additional overhead in other usecases, tho, and of course I'm annoyed to hear that people have problems with this :-( -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
