On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:49 AM, oliver <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you just use files, without checking, if they are symbolic links, > then you have the problems that goes along with symbolic links, already. > Any file that you import might already be a symbolic link in the > directory you import. > > How is/was that handled? > > We do check if the directory is a symbolic link before processing it. GLib has a mechanism where you can determine if a symbolic link to a directory corresponds to the "real" path to the directory. This is how we avoid directory loops. Is Filemonitoring already used on regular files? > And: is it file-based? > If so, this would may answer some of the performance issues I had with num > of files > 100k. > No. We do install a FileMonitor for each directory in your library (usually ~/Pictures), but not for each file. (FileMonitor allows either to be monitored.) There's still a scalability issue when you have an insane number of directories in your library. But, if you have 100,000 photos in, say, 500 directories (not implausible), then only 500 FileMonitor objects are created, which is reasonable. > > however, since there is a hard > > limit each process can create. The general strategy we've used in > directory > > monitoring is to install a single directory monitor and watch the files > it > > contains. > [...] > > Is this automatically done, or triggered by the user? > Such things as automatisms can strongly reduce performance.... > ...at Desktop Environments as well as in photo-programs. > The FileMonitors are only installed if the "Watch library directory for new files" is checked in the Preferences dialog. By default this is turned off. -- Jim _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
