On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM, pira...@gmail.com <pira...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I agree, it makes sense, only that I have read contradictory info > regarding to actual implementations. Maybe they are doing hard links > instead plain copies, and that's the source of the confusion? This > would be acceptable, although not all OSes or filesystems can do > that... > Sorry, I don't know about Chrome's current behavior. This would be pretty easy to test; look at the link count on the file. (I'd be surprised if they were using hard links.) Then Chrome is taking REALLY liberally the interpretation, because on > some tests I removed the file and instead of raising an error it just > gave me an empty content and null modifiedTime and lenght... > That sounds more like a simple bug/incomplete implementation than a liberal interpretation. If lastModifiedDate or length are null, that's definitely a bug (neither one is nullable). Yep :-) So, what other solution would be feasable? Both behaviours > (inmutable and live files) seems to be valid for some use cases... > File objects aren't appropriate for live file updates, as Sicking said elsewhere. (If I had a nicer solution I'd have proposed it already...) -- Glenn Maynard