Re: New module proposal: tracker

[Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>]

On 29/10/09 18:20, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> On do, 2009-10-29 at 17:21 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > From a devil's advocate point of view: this might just mean that it got
> worse (though I doubt it). Zeeshan raises concerns and while you go to
> great lengths to explain that it is different, there is nothing that
> might convince him that it is actually *better*.

True, but the point is, it isn't the same contrary to popular belief ;)

> Erm, wouldn't the lack of a recursive notification mechanism imply that
> you have to do a directory crawl at startup to place notify watches on
> each and every file?

We do this per directory not per file.

> That *is* an important issue, much more than the potential of running
> into the limits in, as you said, extreme cases. Hugely occupying the
> hard disk when the user wants to start using his/her computer is bad.

What do you mean by hugely occupying?

> So the question is: does the indexer do a full directory crawl when
> starting? Because in that case, I don't want it.

Yes for now. We have considered only doing this initially but the cost 
for doing this (in 0.7) is cheap and the concern is more that we could 
miss file updates or new files.

Have you tried 0.7?

> So not having recursive inotify (or something alike) can be a problem
> for the indexer. Which does not say much about the data store. I think
> it might be wise to consider the tracker data store and the tracker
> indexer as separate components to propose, given the different issues
> involved.

This has been suggested before too. I don't believe that makes sense 
either but then my opinion isn't the only one :)

--
Regards,
Martyn