--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --- Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > > Actually if an exclude pattern is like
> **/Test/**,
> > > every time a directory Test is encountered it
> should
> > > not be scanned.
> >
> > The exception to that rule is if some other
> directory
> > Test is more explicitly specified as an include; I
> > think this is handled as well as can be in
> > couldHoldIncluded().
>
> What do you mean Matt? What you just wrote sounds
> incorrect
> to me, and I believe Antoine is correct when he
> writes that
> we should stop scanning when *any* Test directory is
> seen.
>
> Excludes always win over includes (or selectors),
> even if the
> include is more specific. This is why the selectors
[SNIP]
Okay, I think you are correct... this is documented as
a nice to-do in Antoine's isMorePowerfulThanExcludes()
method. I had to go back and reevaluate what was
going on. That method exists AFAICT to determine
whether, for a given directory, there exists an
exclude pattern that specifically excludes everything
below that directory. This is where the logic could
be improved to determine when a scan could be skipped
based on matching wildcards followed by the exact
directory name. Sorry for the confusion.
-Matt
> --DD
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
