On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Javier Vegas <jav...@beboinc.com> wrote:
> Sorry, what I meant is issuing the new method watchChildren() on the > parent node (basically the same as getChildren() but returning just a > boolean instead of a list of children, because I already know the > paths of the original children and the ones that were added/deleted so > I dont need the list again). You need to analyze this very much more carefully in light of Ben's comment. > I wasnt thinking (yet) about > grandchildren, but If I want to watch for them, I will need to do a > initial getChildren() on the new child that NodeChildrenChanged told > me about, followed by a watchChildren() after each event. Does this > make sense? That is close. The watch has to be set when you do the getChildren to avoid having a crack that a change could fall into between the getChildren and setting the watch.
