This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 12417 - Request transaction support for filesystems
Summary: Request transaction support for filesystems
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: platform
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Filesystems (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P4 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jaroslav Tulach
URL:
Keywords: THREAD
: 117022 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2001-05-25 13:26 UTC by Jesse Glick
Modified: 2010-04-19 21:21 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jesse Glick 2001-05-25 13:26:58 UTC
FileSystem.runAtomicAction seems like a neat way for a filesystem to support
real transactions, if it has that ability--i.e. if within an atomic block the
client creates a new FileObject, writes contents to it, and sets attributes,
then the filesystem could store up this info and only actually write it when the
atomic block finishes; if there is a problem it would rollback the block.

But runAtomicAction is final, and associated methods such as beginAtomicAction
and finishAtomicAction are package-private (anyway you would need probably
rollbackAtomicAction or something like this). So it is not possible AFAIK.
Comment 1 Jan Chalupa 2001-11-27 13:04:08 UTC
Target milestone -> 3.3.1.
Comment 2 Marek Grummich 2002-07-22 11:28:07 UTC
Set target milestone to TBD
Comment 3 Marek Grummich 2002-07-22 11:30:00 UTC
Set target milestone to TBD
Comment 4 David Simonek 2002-08-07 09:45:38 UTC
passing to Radek directly.
Comment 5 Jesse Glick 2003-07-14 16:28:07 UTC
This would be trivial with e.g. Mutex.writeAccess... should be
considered in context of general threading usage in FS API.
Comment 6 Antonin Nebuzelsky 2008-04-15 17:17:32 UTC
Reassigning to new module owner jskrivanek.
Comment 7 Jaroslav Tulach 2010-04-16 20:51:49 UTC
No way. There is enough problems with filesystems already, it does not make sense to make yet another promise that we cannot deliver.
Comment 8 Jesse Glick 2010-04-19 21:21:59 UTC
*** Bug 117022 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***