Re: [Tracker] Indexing removable devices on demand

[Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>]

On 05/16/2012 02:04 PM, Felipe Borges wrote:
> Thanks for your answer!

No problem,

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com
> <mailto:martyn lanedo com>> wrote:
>
>
>         I have written this e-mail because I want to hear from you how
>         desired
>         this feature is and suggestions on how it should be implemented.
>
>
>     I think it's a good idea.
>
>     Right now a lot of the things people are not happy when it comes to
>     the right content being indexed are due to us second guessing
>     behaviour from users (e.g. indexing the Downloads/ directory when
>     the Linux kernel is stored 20 times there... OR assuming all files
>     are in XDG locations recursively / just $HOME one level deep). We
>     can't be sure that satisfies all use cases.
>
>     How do you intend to do this? Ask the user if they have content they
>     want indexed on the media and then fire off an API call?
>
>
> Yes. Essentially an user would *Import files* from a device which is
> recognized in the application side. That would fire off a call for
> something like tracker_miner_fs_add_mount() (or
> tracker_miner_fs_add_directory() on the mount root) which would index
> this given device.

Interesting OK.

> Besides, my mentor has pointed me out that we need to ensure that:

Who is your mentor by-the-way? Anyone I know? :)

>   * the mount stops being tracked as soon as applications are not
>     interested in results from it anymore

This sounds like updating tracker:available for resources of that mount 
point in the DB or did you mean that we don't have inotify event 
monitoring on that location? I presume the former.

We have a mechanism already to remove old mount point data, usually in 
terms of days not on demand. We would have to disable that for these 
mount points.

>   * that the mount doesn't get automatically indexed the next times it's
>     plugged
>   * results from that mount should be kept in the database cache
>     indefinitely, even after the mount goes away so that we wouldn't
>     need to start fresh the next time
>
> Do you suggest any new/better approach?

No, it seems sane enough.

We usually don't keep results in the database indefinitely for removable 
devices because it can just clutter the DB with not benefit (consider 
your friend brings their USB device round and you never see it on your 
machine again, that data is then stored and never used again).

--
Regards,
Martyn

Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH.