When you do that for the first time, Apple copies your data from iCloud Documents to the new system. When first launching iOS 8 or OS X Yosemite, you also upgraded to a new iCloud technology called "iCloud Drive". After iOS or OS X upgrade or buying a new device, Please see the question below for more information. Turn pwSafe off inside iCloud Drive, inside iCloud settings (system preferences on the Mac, settings app on iOS).įinally, OS X Yosemite and iOS 8 will only sync with one another or future OS X and iOS versions.If they get stuck, rebooting usually fixes the problem. Macs and iOS devices can take time to download all your files from iCloud Drive servers. On iOS devices, that you are connected to WI-FI or the "Use Cellular Data" option is enabled for iCloud Drive.That iCloud Drive is enabled (including the pwSafe-specifc sub-option).You are using the same Apple-ID (email address) to log on to ICloud on all your devices. To make sync work, please open the settings app (iOS) or the system preferences app (Mac), navigate to the iCloud section, and check that: All safes stored inside the pwSafe folder in iCloud Drive will be available on both the Mac app and the iOS app. It's probably the-right-thing here.PwSafe uses iCloud Drive for syncing. Also, unprefixed mutex created in "Local" space. The above suffers from from notes in other answers/comments about malicious programs being able to sit on a mutex. Processes are much more cleaned-up after than threads :) mutex will go away when no process has it open. Windows will release the resources for the process and the The mutex already existed - exit application. will release the mutex, which is not good here!).ĪppMutex = new Mutex(true, "mutexname", out createdNew) you must keep it from being collected (and the finalizer called, which This may or may not work identically in 'AppDomain-processes' (see link at bottom): // Make sure that appMutex has the lifetime of the code to guard. I use this method, I believe it to be safe because the Mutex is destroyed if no long held by any application (and applications are terminated if if they can't initially create the Mutext). The second process starts running again and gets an AbanonedMute圎xception.The mutex is not destroyed because process #2 has a handle. Second process starts up and aquires a handle to the mutex but is switched out before the WaitOne call.The following sequence of events can occur which would cause a second instance of the application to throw: Using it is not always simple.Įxpanding upon the race condition possibility: I encourage you to read up on the details of the Mutex class. You'll need a recovery strategy for this. There is a race condition in your code that would allow for a second process to get an AbandonedMute圎xception in the WaitOne call. This can happen for instance if a user kills the process through TaskManager. Unfortunately though, even with a finally block you must deal with the potential that a process will be terminated without freeing up the mutex. That would make it so that future process instances would not be able to start up. Otherwise your process could abruptly terminate and leave it in a signaled state, like an exception. However the devil is in the details.įirstly you want to close the mutex in a finally block.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |