06-May-2004 meeting notes
darin at meer.net
Wed, 11 May 2005 13:42:57 -0700
Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> Darin Fisher wrote:
>> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>>> In the real world (or at least the customers that rhat talks to) the
>>> multiple-programs-on-the-same-machine use case isn't nearly as
>>> important as the
>>> same-user-logging-in-with-the-same-home-nfs-directory use case. Do
>>> we want to try to tackle that?
>> I may be a bit biased as well...
>> We had a series of conference calls several months back at the
>> Mozilla Foundation with engineers from Fidelity. They were building
>> a large XUL-based internal application (1000+ XUL screens). They
>> were specifically interested in finding a solution to running
>> multiple instances of "mozilla -chrome" on the same machine and
>> having them share profile data.
>> The problem of the
>> same-user-logging-in-with-the-same-home-nfs-directory affects all
>> applications, and not just Mozilla. Perhaps some sort of
>> application-agnostic solution would be better then? Or, if we want a
>> Mozilla-specific solution for that case, how about we develop a
>> readonly-profile mode to fallback on?
> Yeah, we're looking at fixing gconf in such a way so that this won't
> be so much of a problem. I'm not clear on the details, though. I
> will look into it.
How might gconf help us share cert8.db or XUL.mfasl ? I'm sure it will
be a good solution for prefs, but as for other things... it seems to
fall short. Or, are there big plans for gconf being more than just a
clone of the Win32 registry?
>> How does Microsoft handle this problem?
> Do they have to support NFS? :)
No, but it's not like SMB is so much better. My question goes beyond
NFS. Whenever you have a remote filesystem with multiple machines
accessing the same data, you have a contention issue. Roaming profiles
are standard on Win32 platforms. I'm curious how they solve the
multiple access problem. And, I'm also curious about whether or not
they support shared access to the IE cookies, history, and other stuff
contained in the remote profile, etc. IIRC, the IE cache is always