Just take any opened.dll file (or.exe) and rename it. It should work without issue. I used this method for years in replacing running.dlls with upgraded versions.
It may be an NTFS only scenario, but you can rename a file that is open as read only. If it's open for write access, then no, I wouldn't expect you to be able to rename it.
Right after you rename you can use MoveFileEx to mark the file for deletion upon next reboot... so yes it's still a good idea to tell the user to reboot, unfortunately.
Of course if you really wanted to you could check the process list to see what programs have the DLL in question open and tell the user to quit those and retry (MSI 3.0 does this already)
Amen to that. TFA was really missing some useful information. The only place I can see doing clean export/checkout is on a build machine where they need to guarantee there isn't anything leftover that could compromise the build. I'm one of the SVN admins at our company and this is something that we're going to have to keep an eye on.
The performance hit for having everything in one repository "shouldn't" be as bad as you think. Each revision is it's own separate file, and determining which files have changed in that set is very minimal, so doing an update on your repository when some other project checked something in should be negligible, as files in your project didn't actually change.
Of course larger repositories will start to take longer doing checkouts/exports, and project "cleansing" should always be the first line of defense in these performance hits. TFA didn't at all talk about update/commit at all, which is what people should be using instead of checkout/export. If they did that, the performance hit would go away suddenly I think. He also didn't say which DB backend it used (BDB or FSFS).
But that is the key: "...unless the user intentionally stops uploading as soon as the download is complete." I don't know the numbers that show the number of leechers vs seeders, but I'm sure it's at least 10:1. So if all of these selfish leechers use this new selfish client, how will that affect the overall network? I can't RTFA because of our work internet nanny, but judging by the summary, this client is primarily used to increase download speed. So now we end up with more leechers getting higher download rates, potentially clogging the "internet pipes".
Slashdot Mirror
Just take any opened .dll file (or .exe) and rename it. It should work without issue. I used this method for years in replacing running .dlls with upgraded versions.
It may be an NTFS only scenario, but you can rename a file that is open as read only. If it's open for write access, then no, I wouldn't expect you to be able to rename it. Right after you rename you can use MoveFileEx to mark the file for deletion upon next reboot... so yes it's still a good idea to tell the user to reboot, unfortunately. Of course if you really wanted to you could check the process list to see what programs have the DLL in question open and tell the user to quit those and retry (MSI 3.0 does this already)
Amen to that. TFA was really missing some useful information. The only place I can see doing clean export/checkout is on a build machine where they need to guarantee there isn't anything leftover that could compromise the build. I'm one of the SVN admins at our company and this is something that we're going to have to keep an eye on.
The performance hit for having everything in one repository "shouldn't" be as bad as you think. Each revision is it's own separate file, and determining which files have changed in that set is very minimal, so doing an update on your repository when some other project checked something in should be negligible, as files in your project didn't actually change. Of course larger repositories will start to take longer doing checkouts/exports, and project "cleansing" should always be the first line of defense in these performance hits. TFA didn't at all talk about update/commit at all, which is what people should be using instead of checkout/export. If they did that, the performance hit would go away suddenly I think. He also didn't say which DB backend it used (BDB or FSFS).
But that is the key: "...unless the user intentionally stops uploading as soon as the download is complete." I don't know the numbers that show the number of leechers vs seeders, but I'm sure it's at least 10:1. So if all of these selfish leechers use this new selfish client, how will that affect the overall network? I can't RTFA because of our work internet nanny, but judging by the summary, this client is primarily used to increase download speed. So now we end up with more leechers getting higher download rates, potentially clogging the "internet pipes".