Re: Thread safe equivalent of LINUX touch command

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Thread safe equivalent of LINUX touch command by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2012 at 15:04 UTC
There is no way that File::Touch is thread-safe(). ()I don't think the OP actually means "thread-safe" either, but that may become clearer in time. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP Neil Armstrong	[reply]
Re^3: Thread safe equivalent of LINUX touch command by space_monk (Chaplain) on Nov 22, 2012 at 23:04 UTC
Why not? AFAICT, if one thread touches a file then it will succeed, and if another thread tries to touch a file, then it too will succeed. There is nothing wrong in both threads succeeding and I don't think there is any lock issues apart from the actual creation of the file and/or setting of the modification date, which are probably operating/filesystem issues and should be thread safe in any event. A Monk aims to give answers to those who have none, and to learn from those who know more.	[reply]
Re^4: Thread safe equivalent of LINUX touch command by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2012 at 23:20 UTC
Why not? Because the module modifies multiple pieces of data (times) in a non-atomic manner, with no synchronisation or locking. (Stop guessing and look at the *&%$ code!) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP Neil Armstrong	[reply]