Message-Id:	<m0xzc5a-000S2WC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:54:59 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: fopen and shared files question
References:	<m0xzbYF-000S2dC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980203141432.22546B-100000@is>

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

 
> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > > So what is different about your editor that you cannot?
> > The OS that we used.
> 
> Sorry, I missed the fact that you were using Windows 3.X.
> 
> > > Can you post a simple test program that fails when run on the same
> > > file in two different DOS boxes?
> > Any will do it.
> 
> So on Windows 3.X you cannot browse the same file from two different DOS 
> boxes using the DJGPP port of Less?  (I'm sorry I cannot test this easily 
> myself, since I almost never install SHARE, so I cannot find a DOS 
> machine with it installed nearby.)
I'll test it at home (I have W3.11 and W95 in the same machine at home).
 
> > Win3.11 (No WfW) + Win32s:
> 
> 3.11 or 3.1?  AFAIK, 3.11 and WfW is the same, no?
No isn't the same. WfW is W3.11 with the network extentions. W3.11 is just 3.1 
with some bugs fixed.
I have this strange thing, it reports 3.11 from the Program's manager about 
box.

> Also, did you enable 32-bit file access mode?  (If you did, I think 
> Windows uses its VSHARE.386 driver instead of SHARE.)
No, I think isn't enabled, in fact if I don't load SHARE the behavior changes a 
lot. 
 
> > SHARE is very important here.
> 
> This is so strange!...  First, I would expect SHARE to behave the same as
> (or close to) Windows 95's built-in VSHARE driver.  And second, did you 
> use DOS SHARE.EXE or Windows VSHARE.386?
DOS SHARE as M$ programs asks (Word 6.0 produces warnings if you install it 
under W3.1X without the SHARE.EXE loaded).
 
> > With SHARE loaded the share flags are very important. 
> Does the behavior contradict the table in the Interrupt List?
Seems that yes. I didn't take a look to the interrupt list, but according to 
your first post isn't the same behavior.

> > The solution (if it exists) will set the share flags according to
> > the read & write status.
> 
> If we can come up with a set of tests which will work in most of the 
> cases, I personally don't see anything wrong with looking at Windows 
> version to decide what to do.
Ok.
 
> > My idea is to emulate the W95 
> > logic under W3.11 because W95 uses a very good policy.
> 
> I agree.
> 

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -