Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
When a folder of files (called it A) is copied to a watch path, after it is
synced
to the other tagged folders, immediately delete A from where it is 1st copied
to
will cause it to recreate. The reason is when A is copied to another tagged
folder,
a create event will be fired from the 2nd tagged folder. At this time before
the 2nd
tagged folder asked for a sync, A is gone so a sync will recreate A in the
first
folder.
When a folder of files (called it A) is copied to a watch path, after it is
synced
to the other tagged folders, immediately delete A from the 2nd folder will
produced "nothing happen". The reason is when A is copied to another tagged
folder,
a create event will be fired from the 2nd tagged folder. At this time before
the 2nd
tagged folder asked for a sync, A is deleted at the 2nd folder. The monitor
will
treat this as a temp file (a create follow by a delete immediately) so there
will
not be a sync.
If anyone can understand what I trying to say, suggest a solution if you have
any.
Original comment by kohcherg...@gmail.com
on 11 Mar 2010 at 5:25
Hi Cher Guan,
I tried to implement a folder lock but it seems it is not possible. Still
looking
into it. One suggestion I have will be to do the following:
1. Event detected.
2. If event is folder create event,
Check all subsequent file events. If they are a child of the folder that was
created, simply send them over (no need for the delay).
This should speed up the time it takes for your events to be fired, hopefully you
can handle the second delete properly then :)
Original comment by sohyuanc...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2010 at 6:50
Issue 14 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by sohyuanc...@gmail.com
on 15 Mar 2010 at 2:37
Added to http://code.google.com/p/big5sync/wiki/KnownIssues09
Original comment by sohyuanc...@gmail.com
on 16 Mar 2010 at 7:37
Issue 15 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by sohyuanc...@gmail.com
on 16 Mar 2010 at 7:37
Original comment by gohkhoon...@gmail.com
on 26 Mar 2010 at 4:14
Refer to issue179 for some limitation
Original comment by kohcherg...@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2010 at 6:36
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
sohyuanc...@gmail.com
on 11 Mar 2010 at 11:28