[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)

To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi (MiNT list)
Subject: Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
From: joska@nvg.org (Jo Even Skarstein)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:02:25 +0100
Delivered-to: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
In-reply-to: <aMail1.27b.20020203214756.2078917053@nex>
List-help: <mailto:listar@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:47:56 +0100, Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz wrote:

> If so, it perhaps could be useful to make the OVL carry all the
> caching, and tell users to disable the caching functions in CAB itself?
> Is this possible/reasonable?

If it's possible, it would have another advantage than just avoiding the
bugs in CAB. If the ovl handles the cache by itself, it could synchronize
the cache access with other instances of itself, thus allowing several
CAB sessions to work simultaneously.

/*
** Jo Even Skarstein    http://home.nvg.org/~joska/
*/

References:
- Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
  - From: draco@obta.uw.edu.pl (Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz)

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] CAB OVL (?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread