Re: [Nautilus-list] Re: [PATCH]: avoid directory reloading when not needed.

[Yoann Vandoorselaere <yoann mandrakesoft com>]

Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com> writes:

> On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 03:14  PM, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> 
> >> A particularly bad case of this has to do with going up from your home
> >> directory, I seem to recall. There were cases where new files just
> >> didn't show up without a refresh. We can dig around the bug database
> >> to find this specific awful case. I'm pretty sure this change
> >> reintroduces the bug.
> >
> > The solution to this is to issue a reload if the directory is
> > already monitored. Is there a way to do that ?
> 
> Sounds like a good thing to do -- we can add a new call to
> NautilusDirectory that does that. But if the directory isn't already
> monitored, what harm does the call to force_reload do?

Nothing, AFAICT...

> > Another thing is that I never ever seen Nautilus cache > 1 directory
> > at a time.
> 
> I don't know what you mean.

I never seen Nautilus cache more than the current directory.

> > And the third thing is that even thought the directory is cached,
> > new file appear on reloading it from the cache (at least it should
> > be from the cache) (and I really can't understand this one).
> 
> I'd like to help you understand, but I can't figure what you mean. I
> guess there are multiple caches here, and that's making the wording
> confusing. Do you mean that the directory is in the file system cache?
> Or that it's cached in NautilusDirectory?

mkdir ~/test

- load ~/test from nautilus

touch ~/test/a

- just press enter in the location bar the directory (which is now
  cached by Nautilus) reload from cache. The result is that we see
  the new file even thought nautilus_force_directory_reload() was
  not called.

> >> Maybe some of the other folks in the Nautilus community can weigh in
> >> on this. If there's a consensus among enough of you guys that we
> >> should do this change, I'll approve it. But I personally think it's
> >> not an improvement. It brings back the old bug we had where you see
> >> cached data that confused.
> >
> > I can't reproduce this bug in my current tree.
> 
> The bug in question is bug 4873. Why don't you follow the steps there
> and tell me if you can reproduce it.

still can't reproduce...

-- 
Yoann Vandoorselaere | ...And God turned over and contemplated His Work
MandrakeSoft         | And He said : "shiiiiiiiiit !"