Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/12/01/02:49:58
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:33:32 -0500
> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
>
> If there are no read locks, and we simulate them with write locks...
> well, maybe not, after all. If the locks are regional, then another
> process won't be able to change that region, after all. I see your
> point. Maybe we can just translate the read locks to write locks and
> be done with it.
That's what I thought we should do.
> >The detection part is easy: Int 2Fh with AX=1000h will tell you if
> >SHARE is installed (and DTRT on Windows as well, AFAIK).
>
> Well, that's interesting. Do we then *want* to act as a no-op when
> SHARE is not installed, and always return success?
I think so. The only case where this loses is on Windows 3.X where
someone uninstalled SHARE.EXE. We can document this special case and
be done with it.
> That still has the
> disadvantage for new coding with erroneous locking logic that it won't
> catch the error(s) until the program is run in a locking environment.
We can document this as well. Anyway, whoever writes code that needs
locking should test it in the environment where locking works, right?
- Raw text -