file locking primitive

David T. Lewis lewis at
Sat Jan 3 20:20:43 UTC 2004

David was only describing how Unix and Windows work, and pointing
out that we will want to try to make them act the same when the
primitives are being written. So yes, a new set of platform-specific
primitives is needed, along with some way to convince the primitives
to behave consistently on various incompatible operating systems.

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:11:55PM -0800, Julian Fitzell wrote:
> Hmm... Andrew seemed to be under the impression that the locking 
> currently didn't work at all on *nix (in the latest code you've given 
> us) and that adding a primitive was the correct action. If this already 
> works, we should be doing something else, or you're already doing it 
> then I would definitely like to know about it... :)
> We do need to run the server on *nix, so what do you recommend?
> Julian
> David Gorisek wrote:
> > Regarding file locking primitives, there is also another issue that has
> > to be taken into account.
> > 
> > On Unix when the same process locks the same file region twice, the
> > second call will succeed.
> > 
> > On Windows the second call will fail, becuase the file region is already
> > locked.
> > 
> > For true interoperability the file locking behavior should be the same
> > across various OSs.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list