I'm trying to do the following:
Read a file's attributes
If the attributes match a certain condition,
delete the file
Right now I'm using NSFileManager to perform a attributesOfItemAtPath:error: followed by removeItemAtPath:error:. I'm worried something will happen in between the two operations that invalidates the initial check.
What's the best way to make these two operations atomic?
Edit
The answers so far suggest file locking, which I have tried looking into. The closest thing I could find was setting the NSFileImmutable flag. But it seems like any other program could come along, unset it, and modify the file.. Is there a better way to lock a file?
Edit 2
Someone asked for a use case. Let's say I'm trying to keep two folders in sync. Any changes made to the files in one folder are mirrored in the other, and vice versa. If I delete file 1 from folder A, I will also delete file 1 from folder B. But if file 1 in folder B changes right before I delete it; then instead of deleting it, I want to sync it back to folder A
You can use mandatory (kernel enforced) file locking to lock the file in question to prevent changes being done to the file when you are operating on it. I know Linux and Solaris support mandatory file locking but I have no clue if OS X / HFS+ does and if so how to use it. Hope this helps.
So you have more than one attribute query then? If so, why not just lock the file before starting the queries? Once done, unlock. Then if delete, delete.
There's a way to lock a file with Cocoa; I googled and worked that problem a few days back, but I already forgot the specific message; sorry..
I suggest to use a message in order to accept or delete the file with this method:
fileManager:shouldRemoveItemAtPath:
The prototype of your development is to call method delete the file and in the method shouldRemoveItemAtPath: you accept (returns YES) or you reject (returns NO) as the file attributes values.
Hope this help
It seems to me that you should just go ahead and delete the files that matched. There's no point to locking unless you are worried some other app will change the file such that it can't be deleted. Think about it; you found a file that matches your delete criteria. You want to delete it. Does it really matter if it changes in the meantime?
Related
Sorry if this seems stupid but I wonder if it's possible to add a database entry after an ftp upload.
To be more clear, thanks to winSCP I have several folders sending everything I put in there automatically to my server.
However, I would like to create a mysql entry for each uploaded files and once again, automatically. Is it possible to do that? How?
To gives the full details of what I need to do, you can read the following.
I have several folders with pictures and each folders are uploaded automatically.
Each of those folders belong to one user and the goal is to give them an account and allow them to see and download those files through a web interface. Since one account = one folder, that's kinda easy.
And I think a simple .htaccess can simply secure things so one user can only see and download the file in his own repository, no?
However if I want them to be able to see what's new (=something they didn't download or simply mark as read) I think I need a table to manage those files.
Something like id | file (string) | read (bool).
If you think this way to proceed is bad, they I'm open to change how to do things, but to be clear uploading the file need to work this way. Not using any kind of formulary.
Thanks for reading that, sorry for my english.
Your problem contains three steps:
Folders/Files been automatically uploaded to your server directory, as you say, this been efficiently handled by winSCP.
You need to update your database with all the files and folders present in your server directory.
You need to update whether or not it is been read/downloaded by the user.
Since your first step is in place, we don't need anything there. For second step, you should write a script and schedule that script to run at a fixed time interval using CRON (if using LINUX or UNIX, or WINDOWS). The script would be responsible to create a list of file(s) present in the directory, and simply insert the file(s) information that are not present in your database.
EDIT:
This edit is to describe how your script file should work. As I explained, the cron jobs would simply help you run your script file in fixed set of interval (which can be every minute, or every hour, or every day, and so on). Lets say your database table has following columns:
fileid (varchar[20])
filepath (varchar[20])
status (boolean)
Your script file should do following things:
Create a list of existing filepaths in your server directory
Run a select query, create a list of existing filepaths from database table.
Compare list1 with list2, and find the ones that doesn't exist in list2 (This would give you a list of filepath that needs to be inserted into table)
Just insert the list of file paths you got above, and set there status to be false (which means the file is not read/downloaded yet)
NOTE: Please keep in mind that I am not advising right now that how your database table should look like. It can be what you have proposed or can even differ depending on your will or requirements.
For the third step, simply keep the status of your file to be unread when creating entries in your table from the second step, and then when user click on the file link in your application whether to view or download it, send a POST request to your server updating the file status to be marked as read.
Let me know if this helps!
I am working on File Management System exactly like Dropbox in Cocoa.
My problem is when i edit any text file at that time NSFileSystemFileNumber is changed.
I want an unique NSFileSystemFileNumber even if that edited file is moved from the particular folder.
In short, I just want to know how to fetch that moved file's old or original path from the database.
Any alternate way to solve out this problem?
Thanks in Adv..!!
It depends on how the editor save functionality is implemented. Each editor will have different functionality and it sounds like the one you are using does the following:
Delete existing file.
Create new file.
Write file data.
Hence you get a new inode each time. Others might:
Truncate existing file.
Write file data.
which would result in the same inode each time.
There is nothing you can about this so you will need to track file changes using the name or something, not the inode.
We have a need to refactor a code base. The thing is that this will be done by one person and it would be desirable to avoid having the rest of the development team sitting idle while this job takes place.
We therefore tried the following scenario to see if it is possible to work in parallel.
Created file test.txt in directory first in developer A's workspace.
Promoted this file.
Updated developer B's workspace, thereby getting file test.txt
In A's workspace moved file test.txt to directory second.
Promoted this move.
In B's workspace edited file test.txt while it still resides in directory first (no update is made thereby emulating that work is done while refactoring is taking place).
Tried to promote and got a message saying that file test.txt had been modified (correct, file has been moved).
Tried to merge but got an error message saying that AccuRev can't merge since the file is missing in directory second (where it has been moved).
Tried to update B's workspace but that is not allowed since there is a modified file that needs to be merged first.
We are now stuck in a catch 22 situation.
We did try to place a fake file in directory second but that is not being recognized since this file does not belong to the workspace.
Has anyone out there tried something like this and gotten it to work?
It is of course possible to copy files but if there is a better way we would be grateful to hear about this. Or if this is a known bug or limitation in the tool.
We will contact also contact AccuRev support but I thought that I might be able to get some useful tips from the community.
Currently we are using AccuRev client 5.5.0.
Thanks for any suggestions on how to make the tool support this operation.
Referring to your steps 6 & 7: In AccuRev 5.5 after a file is edited and has a (modified) status you first have to keep before you can promote.
At step 8 you could try doing the merge from the Browse Versions view of the file. That way you can select any node to merge with, including the one that has been moved.
Step 9. An AccuRev update will not run successfully if one of the files to be updated is (modified). This is by design. You can keep the file so it has (kept)(member) status then run the update.
David Howland
After contact with AccuRev support the answer is that the only option available is to copy the file to some temp directory, revert the changes, update the workspace and copy the file into the new location in the workspace.
AccuRev will at least tell you which files you have to copy since they will be marked as modified.
I could experimentally verify David's remark to step 9 using AccuRev 5.5.
Let's assume that in the workspace of user A the file was moved and the move was promoted, while in the workspace of user B the file was modified and user B is about to promote his/her change.
Before the file is kept, it will not be possible for user B neither to merge nor to update. But after keeping the modified file the update is possible. The file is first marked as overlap, then the merge succeeds in the new location. Basically, this avoids creating a copy of the file, reverting it and restoring it in the new location after an update, which can be quite cumbersome, as AccuRev does not reveal easily where the move goes.
If user B promotes the modification before user A promotes the move, all goes smoothly, i.e. on update the moved file appears as overlap, but easily merges into the moved file in the new location.
Similar results are obtained when the two users have workspaces connected to different streams and the overlap occurs on a common parent stream. Only if the file is unkept, an error can occur (i.e. only if the move is promoted before the change). Then a simple keep allows to proceed as usual (update, merge, then promote).
Using Struts 2: when will the .tmp file - that gets created after uploading a file - be deleted?
How can you customize when the .tmp file should be deleted? Do you have to create a copy of it?
Please don't be shy to give some code :)
1. This depends on which version of S2 you're talking about.
S2.2.1 and prior: the file upload interceptor deleted temp files.
S2.2.3 and above: the filter dispatchers start the deletion process, changed due to WW-3490.
2. Assuming you're using a recent version, it might be possible to inject a tweaked Dispatcher, although it's not immediately obvious how–if it is, that's the easiest change at the core level.
The easiest approach from a practical standpoint is to copy files in the action, which is also pretty fast on any reasonable file system.
I'm running a very computationally intensive scientific job that spits out results every now and then. The job is basically to just simulate the same thing a whole bunch of times, so it's divided among several computers, which use different OSes. I'd like to direct the output from all these instances to the same file, since all the computers can see the same filesystem via NFS/Samba. Here are the constraints:
Must allow safe concurrent appends. Must block if some other instance on another computer is currently appending to the file.
Performance does not count. I/O for each instance is only a few bytes per minute.
Simplicity does count. The whole point of this (besides pure curiosity) is so I can stop having every instance write to a different file and manually merging these files together.
Must not depend on the details of the filesystem. Must work with an unknown filesystem on an NFS or Samba mount.
The language I'm using is D, in case that matters. I've looked, there's nothing in the standard lib that seems to do this. Both D-specific and general, language-agnostic answers are fully acceptable and appreciated.
Over NFS you face some problems with client side caching and stale data. I have written an OS independent lock module to work over NFS before. The simple idea of creating a [datafile].lock file does not work well over NFS. The basic idea to work around it is to create a lock file [datafile].lock which if present means file is NOT locked and a process that wants to acquire a lock renames the file to a different name like [datafile].lock.[hostname].[pid]. The rename is an atomic enough operation that works well enough over NFS to guarantee exclusivity of the lock. The rest is basically a bunch of fail safe, loops, error checking and lock retrieval in case the process dies before releasing the lock and renaming the lock file back to [datafile].lock
The classic solution is to use a lock file, or more accurately a lock directory. On all common OSs creating a directory is an atomic operation so the routine is:
try to create a lock directory with a fixed name in a fixed location
if the create failed, wait a second or so and try again - repeat until success
write your data to the real data file
delete the lock directory
This has been used by applications such as CVS for many years across many platforms. The only problem occurs in the rare cases when your app crashes while writing and before removing the lock.
Why not just build a simple server which sits between the file and the other computers?
Then if you ever wanted to change the data format, you would only have to modify the server, and not all of the clients.
In my opinion building a server would be much easier than trying to use a Network file system.
Lock File with a twist
Like other answers have mentioned, the easiest method is to create a lock file in the same directory as the datafile.
Since you want to be able to access the same file over multiple PC the best solution I can think of is to just include the identifier of the machine currently writing to the data file.
So the sequence for writing to the data file would be:
Check if there is a lock file present
If there is a lock file, see if I'm the one owning it by checking that its content has my identifier.
If that's the case, just write to the data file then delete the lock file.
If that's not the case, just wait a second or a small random length of time and try the whole cycle again.
If there is no lock file, create one with my identifier and try the whole cycle again to avoid race condition (re-check that the lock file is really mine).
Along with the identifier, I would record a timestamp in the lock file and check whether it's older than a given timeout value.
If the timestamp is too old, then assume that the lock file is stale and just delete it as it would mea one of the PC writing to the data file may have crashed or its connection may have been lost.
Another solution
If you are in control the format of the data file, could be to reserve a structure at the beginning of the file to record whether it is locked or not.
If you just reserve a byte for this purpose, you could assume, for instance, that 00 would mean the data file isn't locked, and that other values would represent the identifier of the machine currently writing to it.
Issues with NFS
OK, I'm adding a few things because Jiri Klouda correctly pointed out that NFS uses client-side caching that will result in the actual lock file being in an undetermined state.
A few ways to solve this issue:
mount the NFS directory with the noac or sync options. This is easy but doesn't completely guarantee data consistency between client and server though so there may still be issues although in your case it may be OK.
Open the lock file or data file using the O_DIRECT, the O_SYNC or O_DSYNC attributes. This is supposed to disable caching altogether.
This will lower performance but will ensure consistency.
You may be able to use flock() to lock the data file but its implementation is spotty and you will need to check if your particular OS actually uses the NFS locking service. It may do nothing at all otherwise.
If the data file is locked, then another client opening it for writing will fail.
Oh yeah, and it doesn't seem to work on SMB shares, so it's probably best to just forget about it.
Don't use NFS and just use Samba instead: there is a good article on the subject and why NFS is probably not the best answer to your usage scenario.
You will also find in this article various methods for locking files.
Jiri's solution is also a good one.
Basically, if you want to keep things simple, don't use NFS for frequently-updated files that are shared amongst multiple machines.
Something different
Use a small database server to save your data into and bypass the NFS/SMB locking issues altogether or keep your current multiple data files system and just write a small utility to concatenate the results.
It may still be the safest and simplest solution to your problem.
I don't know D, but I thing using a mutex file to do the jobe might work. Here's some pseudo-code you might find useful:
do {
// Try to create a new file to use as mutex.
// If it's already created, it will throw some kind of error.
mutex = create_file_for_writing('lock_file');
} while (mutex == null);
// Open your log file and write results
log_file = open_file_for_reading('the_log_file');
write(log_file, data);
close_file(log_file);
close_file(mutex);
// Free mutex and allow other processes to create the same file.
delete_file(mutex);
So, all processes will try to create the mutex file but only the one who wins will be able to continue. Once you write your output, close and delete the mutex so other processes can do the same.