<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=koi8-r">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi Olivier,</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>От:</b> Olivier Tilloy <olivier.tilloy@canonical.com><br>
<b>Отправлено:</b> 14 июля 2018 г. 2:47<br>
<b>Кому:</b> mikekaganski@hotmail.com<br>
<b>Копия:</b> libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org<br>
<b>Тема:</b> Re: leading dot and trailing # in lock files</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Thanks Mike for the insights,<br>
<br>
My approach of changing the lock filename pattern was indeed naive and<br>
would invalidate the benefits of a cross-applications, cross-versions<br>
lock mechanism.<br>
<br>
There's little point in implementing an alternative pattern in cases<br>
where the regular lock file cannot be written, if this isn't<br>
propagated to other office programs and backported to all supported<br>
versions.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">Well - I don't agree. Actually, failing to do that would (1) disable our own current and future versions from taking advantages that lock files give: alternative locking where FS locking is unreliable/absent, and information about the
party that had opened the document; and (2) disable other suites from catching up. There are cases where lock files aren't needed actually: e.g., WebDAV, where locking is handled by server in a different way. But for cases where such server-side locking and
information is unavailable, I'd suggest still use alternative lockfile naming.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">Would it be possible instead to write the document itself<br>
and warn the user that no lock file could be written? Or does the<br>
absence of a lock file mean that the file can only be opened<br>
read-only?</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">We could do this, but see above. Inability to write standard lockfile (when one is absent), while possibility to write lockfile with alternative name is a sure sign that we don't get caught to a situation when we will conflict with other
suites, so we are good with the alternative naming. Why not doing that?<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">-- </div>
<div class="PlainText">Best regards,</div>
<div class="PlainText">Mike Kaganski.</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>