Issue 88476 - locking broken between OOo 2.4.0 and OOo 3.0
Summary: locking broken between OOo 2.4.0 and OOo 3.0
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 95809
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.4.0
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: thorsten.martens
QA Contact: issues@framework
URL:
Keywords: regression
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-04-19 18:35 UTC by aziem
Modified: 2008-11-18 16:31 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
crash report from DEV300_m9 (20.49 KB, text/plain)
2008-04-19 18:36 UTC, aziem
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description aziem 2008-04-19 18:35:33 UTC
I am testing Writer .odt locking on one Linux machine two with user accounts
between OOo 3.0 DEV300_9 and OOo 2.4.0 final.  

If OOo 2.4.0 has it locked first, DEV300_m9 goes into a crash-recovery loop.  I
will attach crash report.

If DEV300_m9 has the file open first, then OOo 2.4.0 opens it in write mode.

I also tested Windows XP and Linux sharing via Samba, and there were similar
results.

Mixed environments are not unlikely, so can this be fixed for 2.4.1?
Comment 1 aziem 2008-04-19 18:36:54 UTC
Created attachment 53037 [details]
crash report from DEV300_m9
Comment 2 aziem 2008-04-20 19:08:56 UTC
I retested Linux OOo 2.4 and 3.0 and didn't get a crash, but in both cases, the
second instance opens in read-write mode.

Another test:
On Windows XP, foo.doc in MS Word 2007.  Then, open foo.doc in OOo 3.0: it opens
in read-write mode (wrong).  Close OOo 3.0 and open foo.doc in OOo 2.4.0: opens
in read-only mode (correct).

Suggestion:
I suggest in addition to new locking system (dot lock files), OOo 3.0+ uses the
old file-system-based locking system (unless sharing a Calc document). 
Comment 3 Mathias_Bauer 2008-11-18 16:30:48 UTC
As the crash does not happen anymore, this is a duplicate.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 95809 ***
Comment 4 Mathias_Bauer 2008-11-18 16:31:21 UTC
closing duplicate