Re: [PATCH] inotify 0.5

[John McCutchan <ttb tentacle dhs org>]

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 19:18, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:53:05PM -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> > I think that having a daemon (not necessarily FAM/gamin) or maybe a nice
> > library in between inotify and applications makes sense. The daemon
> > could act as a multiplexer and could merge events before passing them on
> > to the client.
>
>   Yeah, flow control is part of what need to be improved. Unclear yet
> what's the best stategy to adopt.

My idea is that when we are packaging the events for the client we can
scan the events we have already queued to be sent to the client, and if
the events are the same we toss the one out. A couple questions.. (I
haven't gotten a firm grasp on FAM/gamin yet) does the client (aka
nautilus,etc) ask for all pending events ? or do we just push them down
a fd and nautilus reads them whenever it feels like it?

Either way I think flow control and event merging shouldn't be too hard.
We just need a staging ground for 'new events' where we could batch them
up and say once per second send them off to the clients or fd.
 
> > One question about gamin, why does it not have a backend shutdown
> > routine? 
> 
>   I'm not 100% sure I understand, maybe the answer is because
> this wasn't available in the FAM API.

We should be able to add this right? It shouldn't affect the fam API,
just when gamin is shutting down call a backend shutdown callback.

John