[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

Title:*OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference
Notice:Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1
Moderator:IOSG::PYE
Created:Thu Jan 30 1992
Last Modified:Tue Jan 23 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:4343
Total number of notes:18308

4271.0. "WP_SYS_EDIT.SCP: RMS-lock on WPS-PLUS document" by PEARS::KRAMER (Fritz Kramer @UFC, Munich, 865-1305) Fri Jun 17 1994 10:47

    Hi,
    
    after reading some of the notes concerning the logic behind
    WP_SYS_EDIT.SCP I'm still confused about how
    
    	"Decide whether to reserve with copy"
    
    works.
    
    What happens is:
    
    User A edits a WPSPLUS document in a shared drawer -> OK
    
    User B want to read/print the same document        -> NOT OK,
           as user A edits the original document and 
           WPS-PLUS locks it.
    
    
    
    Shouldn't a WPS-PLUS document stored in a shared drawer 
    (regardless if the drawer is local/remote, or the user owns it)
    always be copied if (any) user wants to edit it?
    
    Taking the the result of CABINET LOCK "EXCLUSIVE" to decide 
    whether to make a copy or not doesn't make sense to me.
    
    Fritz
    
    PS. the above is true in V3.0A and in a PFR!
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
4271.1Some explanation, does this help?IOSG::CARLINDick Carlin IOSG, Reading, EnglandFri Jun 17 1994 13:2627
    Fritz
    
    This is the reasoning that led to the design of this script:
    
    (Avoiding copying)
    One performance goal was that we should avoid making a copy where
    possible, especially for WPS-PLUS documents, since WPS-PLUS was
    considered to be the flagship word processor. For people upgrading to
    V3.* and sharing their drawers we were asked that editing should not be
    degraded from when the user's drawer was not shared. This meant that
    another user would be unable to read a WPS-PLUS document that you were
    editing, but this was considered to be an acceptable trade-off.
    
    (checking EXCLUSIVE lock)
    Given the above decision, we didn't want someone who was reading a
    document to prevent someone else from editing it. Therefore we do a
    trial EXCLUSIVE lock. If it is not successful then we know that
    WPS-PLUS would fail so we copy anyway.
    
    So if the reader gets there first we are ok, but if the editor gets
    there first the reader is unlucky.
    
    Needless to say this approach wasn't the first choice of everybody
    (myself included - dare I say it?). The script can be customised, but
    it obviously needs care.
    
    Dick
4271.2Yes, I understand, but...PEARS::KRAMERFritz Kramer @UFC, Munich, 865-1305Fri Jun 17 1994 17:0823
    Dick,
    
    thanks for your explanation
    
    Yes, now I do better understand the the reasoning behind the logic.
    
    However from the endusers point of view it's rather confusing
    what's going on behind the scenes, as
    the behaviour seem not to be consistent: "Sometimes I can read/print the
    document, sometimes not -> so there must be a bug".
    
    On the other hand the error message from the read/print script is
    misleading somehow: "File does not exist"
    
    From the programmers/system managers point of view I would like to
    have a flag in FORMAT.DAT, indicating whether the a working copy
    of the document needs to be made or not. This would prevent us/me from
    customizing the script e.g for WPSPLUS or any other!!! editor integrated 
    in ALL-IN-1.
    
    Just some thoughts
    
    Fritz
4271.3IOSG::CARLINDick Carlin IOSG, Reading, EnglandMon Jun 20 1994 11:156
    Fritz
    
    Yes, making it configurable sounds like a good idea. Too late for this
    release unfortunately, but we'll bear it in mind.
    
    Dick