Issue 64493 - Win 2003 Terminal Services: Second login to same user triggers document recovery
Summary: Win 2003 Terminal Services: Second login to same user triggers document recovery
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 73072
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.0.0
Hardware: PC Windows Server 2003
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 2.x
Assignee: joerg.skottke
QA Contact: issues@framework
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-04-19 09:41 UTC by joerg.skottke
Modified: 2007-04-29 14:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description joerg.skottke 2006-04-19 09:41:14 UTC

Win2003 Terminal Server in application execution mode
Terminal Server users have their profile redirected to a network share.


- Install the office as Domain Administrator, make it available for all
- Disable Quickstarter.

- Log in to the server as user 'A' locally
- Open a new writer document

- Log into the Terminal Server from a client machine as user 'A'
- Open a new writer document

-> The application starts with the document recovery for "Untitled1"
Comment 1 Joost Andrae 2006-04-20 13:10:57 UTC
JA: I believe Ingo is not the correct owner for this autorecovery issue.
Reassigning to Andreas (as).
->AS: please communicate with JSK regarding the environment.
Comment 2 andreas.schluens 2006-04-20 14:00:32 UTC
AS->JSK: It seams that this is an unsupported use case of our office.
Normaly we allow only one office instance in memory at the same time, runing for ths 
same user and so using the same set of user configuration data.

To prevent using of the same set of config  data we write a file ".lock" into the user 
layer. And if this file will be detected by any new office instance, it should show an UI 
warning the user. If the user ignores this message it's up to the user, which effects 

Please verify, why this .lock file isnt available for this installation or why its ignored.
Comment 3 andreas.schluens 2006-04-20 14:00:55 UTC
Comment 4 joerg.skottke 2006-08-09 12:28:49 UTC
setting 2.x, need to evaluate again
Comment 5 joerg.skottke 2006-08-10 13:41:53 UTC
Well, no. I think this iAS is right here. This is a non-issue.
Comment 6 joerg.skottke 2006-08-10 13:42:25 UTC
Comment 7 kpalagin 2007-04-29 09:30:08 UTC
*** Issue 70372 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 8 kpalagin 2007-04-29 09:37:13 UTC
Dear developers,
please reconsider "WONTFIX".
Comment 9 kpalagin 2007-04-29 14:07:11 UTC
Reopening to set as dup of
73072 is targeted for 2.3.
Comment 10 kpalagin 2007-04-29 14:09:06 UTC
Dup of 73072.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 73072 ***
Comment 11 kpalagin 2007-04-29 14:10:56 UTC