Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
> Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > >> would it be more useful if it automaticaly generated the cache instead >> of telling you to runt he command to do so? > > I think so. To be frank, I do not understand the reason why it is not > done by default. > >> if a solid, perhaps unified, cache existed, would org-id use it too? > > Sure. Why not? I imagine such cache can store the following info: > > org files in system -> per-file cache -> per-heading cache -> ... > I suspect the reason it is not done automatically is that getting that right for all use cases is very hard to do without adding adverse impact to performance. A cache which is marked as 'dirty' too often results in too frequent cache refresh operations, but at the same time, determining what changes in an org file actually invalidate the cache can be a process intensive operation. Allowing the user to force cache refresh when needed is likely a reasonable compromise. I recall having a lot of trouble getting org-refile to work well for me. I use it a lot, but it was so long ago, I don't recall how I got to my final configuration (I think I may have modified my workflow to work better with what I was able to get working reasonably reliably and efficiently). I now tend to refile to a fairly static set of paths, so all works OK. Sorry I cannot provide anything more substantial. I do understand your frustration, but not sure what the right fix is. I can see having a cache which is automatically refreshed when necessary will be problematic to get working for all use cases. Having the ability to turn automatic refresh on/off and having the ability to manually force a refresh will likely always be required. -- Tim Cross