atomicfile - should it use transports?

[Martin Pool]

On 21 Jan 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 11:03 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 10:43 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > I'm not sure but it seems better to have it this way, i.e. with
> > > AtomicFile used by Transport rather than using it.  For some possible
> > > transports (DAV?) there might be a better way to atomically put a file.
> > 
> > This means that all transports that dont have a better way need to use
> > the same code right ? Isn't that duplication of effort ?
> 
> Actually I can be more clear..
> 
> we have two ways to do atomic operations at the moment:
> Atomic file for local paths
> transports for local paths and remote.
> 
> I'd like there to be just one way.

Well that makes sense.

-- 
Martin