Re: [Nautilus-list] Re: when that call to nautilus_directory_force_reload is not needed

[Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com>]

On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 03:17  AM, Zbigniew Chyla wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-06-14 at 02:45:10, David Emory Watson wrote:
>
> > The problem is that even if the files are displayed in another view, we
> > can't be sure that the other view knows about the most recent changes.
>
> Of course we can't, but the old view displays old content anyway (and 
> that's
> what the user sees). Why should the new one be "better"?

Note that there are other reasons a directory could be cached besides 
having another window open. If you find it's easy to fix the code so that 
it can easily tell the "other window open" case from other cases where the 
directory information is already cached, then it's possible to change it 
to work the way you suggest.

On the other hand, I don't agree that Nautilus needs to work optimally 
without FAM. The stuff that FAM does for Nautilus is basic stuff for file 
managers. If FAM didn't exist, we'd be putting that same code into 
Nautilus. So if FAM really isn't good, then we need to duplicate FAM's 
functionality inside Nautilus itself. There's no good reason to have the 
file manager try to work without the monitoring smarts. Things that Yoann 
suggests all the time like "Why not just stat?" are exactly the things 
that FAM does, and things that Nautilus would do directly if FAM was not 
available.

The future direction is either to require FAM or to duplicate its 
functionality in gnome-vfs or in Nautilus, not to work equally well with 
and without it.

    -- Darin