From cd5198a391fd5a562f75d76ece9dcb9f899af4e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: zardoz Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:07:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- .../comment_2_0c683547a6178e4303f0b1ed1f5605a5._comment | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/__171__Locking__187___files_until_synced/comment_2_0c683547a6178e4303f0b1ed1f5605a5._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/__171__Locking__187___files_until_synced/comment_2_0c683547a6178e4303f0b1ed1f5605a5._comment b/doc/forum/__171__Locking__187___files_until_synced/comment_2_0c683547a6178e4303f0b1ed1f5605a5._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..b76f35da5e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/__171__Locking__187___files_until_synced/comment_2_0c683547a6178e4303f0b1ed1f5605a5._comment @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="zardoz" + ip="134.147.14.84" + subject="comment 2" + date="2014-07-09T07:07:27Z" + content=""" +Yea, it’s basically just the isolated one file that needs «locking», so one could just try a different route. The idea with keeping state on a server sounds like a pretty good idea. I could just «echo» via SSH to my webserver some info on who has the file locked; then I could wrap the program that uses the SQLite3 DB in a script that checks whether it’s safe. +"""]]