Talk:Determine if only one instance is running

From Rosetta Code

Except for possibly a few languages, this task is highly operating system dependent. It's probably not a good task for rosettacode.-- 20:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very common problem, and platform-specific code isn't inappropriate, as long as the platform is identified in the example. --Short Circuit 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

C Solution[edit]

I wonder why the file system method was considered a better solution. I liked the older code that used semaphores.

Markhobley 06:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I run OpenBSD. This system has a very broken sem_open() which always fails with ENOSYS. I changed this program from a named semaphore to a regular file, so that the program would work with my system. Now I can add a SIGINT handler.
I did read some sem_open() manual pages. I believed that a name of a named semaphore must start with "/"; but the program had "MyUniqueName", which starts not with "/". I also believed that sem_open() fails by returning SEM_FAILED; but the program checked NULL, not SEM_FAILED.
I noticed that the program never used the semaphore as a semaphore. A program can do the same thing with shared memory (shm_open() and shm_unlink()) or with a regular file (open() and unlink()). So the solution with a regular file is as good as the solution with a semaphore. --Kernigh 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

VB solution[edit]

It looks like the VB solution only checks for previously run instances of the application. What about instances started after this one? Should this be a problem and should we choose to keep this task, it should be corrected. --Mwn3d 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The common case requiring detection of multiple instances are running is to prevent multiple instances of a program from accessing app-global resources. That's probably what the author of the VB solution had in mind. The task author should probably clarify the task's intent and requirements. --Short Circuit 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is as you say for the detection of multiple instances for the purpose of preventing conflicting access to global resources. I would expect the first instance of the task to not detect another instance, whereas subsequent instances (duplicate instances of the same task) detect a previous instance already running and abort with an error message.

Markhobley 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)