Dear All,
Could be done - I would need to learn how to do checksums. Also we would
need to calculate checksums from what we write, which might be complicated
as we never ahve the entire file as a string in memory. I would propose
making htis optional - I do not actually use analysis, so my day is not
ruined if it is slow. Others might have different ideas.
I would wait till a) we have better time and b) we are sure people want
it.
Yours,
Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rasmus H. Fogh Email: [log in to unmask]
Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge,
80 Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1GA, UK. FAX (01223)766002
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Wayne Boucher wrote:
> Right, our guess is that the project save was corrupted by the network
> and/or computer and/or disk (by a "glitch"), so way lower down in the
> system than Analysis or Python. It was fairly lucky here in that all that
> happened was that six shifts were effectively deleted, and after removing
> all references to them in the Nmr.xml file, the project re-opened (and
> there is a way to re-create the missing six shifts). It could have been
> much worse.
>
> But this makes me wonder whether we should get even more paranoid and
> after saving the contents to disk then re-open the file for reading in
> order to do a checksum and see if there is a mismatch with what was
> written to the file. This would have to be done in the API, and I'm not
> sure whether Rasmus would be that keen on this (it would slow the save
> down, perhaps by a lot, because of the checksum calculation having to be
> done twice, and reading the file from disk). If there is a mismatch you
> would have to assume your file was corrupted, and so would have to do
> another save.
>
> Wayne
>
|