From: Carl Beame (beame@mail1.tinet.ie)
Date: 06/03/99-11:06:29 AM Z
From: Carl Beame <beame@mail1.tinet.ie> Subject: Re: Some share reservation minutia Message-Id: <1999Jun03.170925+0100@games> Date: 03 Jun 1999 17:06:29 +0100 On Thu Jun 03 13:23:44 1999, Noveck, Dave wrote: > Section 7.7 of the document says that a client specifies > "the type of access required (READ, WRITE, or BOTH)", > implying that NONE is not a valid specification, but not > explicitly saying that it is an error. As far as I can tell ACCESS=NONE is not valid under Windows at all. If someone is using it, they must be relying on totally undocumented semantics. > On the other hand, > the pseudo-code given in that section seems to make perfect > sense for the case on ACCESS=NONE if I just want to make > sure that nobody else has opened a file, and don't want to > do any IO myself. But since Sharing is now associated with an actual open of the file servers will need to "open" the file with the requested attributes. This might translate into a pseudo open with its corresponding close if the access method (NONE) does not correspond to an operating system file access method. Personally I would disallow access=NONE as it adds possibly a fair amount of overhead to the server with no apparent gain. This is strictly a personal feeling and subject to change if a good reason (no, any case) can be made to include it. - Carl Beame
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:47:07 AM Z CST