Re^5: Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time

in reply to Re^4: Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time
in thread Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time

It seems the point is that flock is documented to have behavior that varies between platforms. If flock is documented as always providing advisory locking, then I think that is a documentation bug (it reads to me that it certain may provide only advisory locking, but I didn't find a clear statement that manditory locking isn't the result on some platforms -- it quickly points to perlport, in fact).

So, if flock is documented to behave differently on different platforms, then writing code that depends on flock being advisory is not portable (which it obviously isn't, in practice).

It looks to me like you missed the point. And I don't see where any technical point was "just refuted" when it could have just been checked by Moron. But I certainly could be missing something.

- tye

Comment on Re^5: Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 19, 2006 at 18:59 UTC
And I don't see where any technical point was "just refuted" when it could have just been checked by Moron. I was pointing out the root cause of the problem was that Windows usedmandatory locking. To this, he replied advisory locking was being used. It looks to me like you missed the point. I had no comment to make on whether `flock` should or shouldn't be used. I'm not sure I'd call that missing the point. I was explaining the root cause of the problem in response to someone claiming it was caused by `DATA` behaving differently on Windows and unix. (It doesn't.)	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Ensuring only one copy of a perl script is running at a time
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 19, 2006 at 18:59 UTC

And I don't see where any technical point was "just refuted" when it could have just been checked by Moron.

I was pointing out the root cause of the problem was that Windows usedmandatory locking. To this, he replied advisory locking was being used.

It looks to me like you missed the point.

I had no comment to make on whether flock should or shouldn't be used. I'm not sure I'd call that missing the point. I was explaining the root cause of the problem in response to someone claiming it was caused by DATA behaving differently on Windows and unix. (It doesn't.)

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom