On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:26:45PM +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> I think the whole canonicalization thing is suspect; you should never
> compare Unix path strings. If you have to compare paths you should use
> stat and compare device/inode.
Except that some FS have difficulty generating un
Michael Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mean like while an application is running? Wouldn't that break a lot of
> applications, which store filenames in memory during runtime?
No, you can remap drives on Windows too.
> In the current implementation, for every shitemid that is constructe
On Thursday 16 June 2005 23:11, Dimi Paun wrote:
> Can't we just invalidate the cache if we notice things have changed?
Yes, that should'nt be too hard. Would that be ok, Alexandre?
Bye,
--
Michael Jung
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Michael Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the current implementation, for every shitemid that is constructed, all
> drives are queried and their paths are canonicalized, which is a lot of
disk
> i/o and string copying. Unixfs is really painfully slow. I guess we need
some
> caching scheme, but
On Thursday 16 June 2005 17:02, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I don't think you want to do that. The goal of the new symlink scheme
> is to make it possible to change drive config on the fly, caching it
> would defeat that.
You mean like while an application is running? Wouldn't that break a lot of
Michael Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changelog:
> Cache the canonicalized unix paths, which correspond to dos devices.
I don't think you want to do that. The goal of the new symlink scheme
is to make it possible to change drive config on the fly, caching it
would defeat that.
--
Ale
