On 29 Sep 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> There is no portable Perl locking code.
Which is about the only point I was trying to make.
> Links aren't supported on NT? Is that NT as an OS? I hope not; I thought
> a POSIX-compliant filesystem had to do symbolic links.
NT does indeed support links (although not quite as UNIX does, WRT to hard
and symbolic). But the issue as I understood it is just to use
link/unlink on UNIX because it is a guarranteed atomic operation, which is
what you need for a locking mechanism.
> Plus, the HIP port is _way_ behind the rest of the world when it comes to
> Perl. Believe me, any Majordomo development that uses perl5 stuff won't
> work on 5.001. Function prototypes are quite useful.
I hope to be able to convince Those That Hold the Purse Strings of that
asap, and move on to a more advanced plain of perl existance.
Any suggestions for the best NT perl port so far?
> Any Perl code is not portable to a system which doesn't have Perl. The
> fact that HIP isn't going much of anywhere as of late is not a reason to
> complicate Majordomo development.
Erm, OK. Wouldn't want Majordomo to be complicated or run on anything but
UNIX now, would we.
Before anyone gets pissy at me for that cheap shot ... I've been a UNIX
tweak for a long time, but have had to transition to NT for a lot of
reasons. I had to take majordomo with me, as there isn't anything else
out there to do the job (yet). I want to see domo become as ubiquitous on
NT as it is on UNIX, partly because it's cool, partly because of the
active and open development process, but mostly because I like it. Oh,
and because Bill Gates is unlikely to ever buy it out.
I've floated the issue of NT on this list several times, but gotten no
replies other than reasons why it isn't worth thinking about. At the risk
of repeating myself, I have 1.93 working perfectly on 4.0 and have offered
to contribute the (small) code changes to the 1.94 effort. These are for
the most part trivial things like "path to sendmail" definitions, tiny
variations in opening to a pipe and such like. The only major rewrite is
shlock, of course.
I'd be happy to make these changes to a version of 1.94, if any of the
active development group will give an indication of some sort that they'll
do something with it so I won't be wasting my time.
> HM> And for purely selfish reasons ... I don't want to end up with an NT
> HM> specific version of shlock I have to maintain!
>
> What's the alternative?
Troll as hard as I can on majordomo-workers till someone else volunteers
to do it.
:)
-- hugh
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
