Hi all!


> On configurations where overwrite-by-rename is a problem, perhaps an alternate of "copy the existing image to a *.bak file" would work?


<http://www.hpi.de/>
Compared to overwrite-by-rename, this proposal would double the storage effort. Provided that I understand you correctly, -1 :-)

> On configurations where overwrite-by-rename is a problem, perhaps an alternate of "copy the existing image to a *.bak file" would work?

What would you like to do with this backup file? Keep them permanently? As we speak about hundreds-of-megabytes file sizes, I think this could be quite storage extensive ... Also, it messes up your image folder. We already have two files for each image: .image and .changes. No need for even more files, imho. But there may always be some special application areas, of course :)

+1 for making a preference for it :-)
However, my personal flavor would be to rule this behavior via the Squeak.ini file (not sure what's the equivalent on other host platforms), so I would prefer to store this preference image-invariant.

VM support: What would be the pros and cons of implementing this in the VM?
First, I don't know whether we already support a way to read the Squeak.ini file from within the image (see above)?
Second, I *could* imagine (though this is spoken hypothetically) that certain host systems might provide convenient ways for implementing overwrite-by-rename. See my initial mail for my worries about a naive implementation. Again, wouldn't this be an argument for implementing this rather at VM side?

Ad validation: Sounds interesting! How high would be the effort for that? Could you do this from within the VM (it's also a question of performance, I guess)? Wouldn't this double the store time? Maybe it would be a good idea to have a second (VM) preference for toggling validation.

Best,
Christoph
________________________________
Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2020 22:05:07
An: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Image damaged due to IO error while saving



> On 2020-01-29, at 12:24 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones <tonyg at leastfixedpoint.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I see, so it's probably something that can be arranged entirely
> image-side, no VM support needed. Right?

Pretty sure it could be done without VM support, yes. One might even use the OSProcess forking trick to do it, I think.

> ... it'd be a Preference, I suppose?
Yet another ...


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
"How many Kdatlyno does it take to change a lightbulb?”
"None. It sounds perfectly OK to them."




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200130/1670151b/attachment.html>