On 21 August 2011 23:44, Adrien Bustany <[email protected]> wrote: > You're perfectly right, it's not desired. > I actually said rubbish in my last mail: the IgnoreNextUpdate call is > on the miner, not the store (sorry for the confusion). So the process > is: > 1. Process X write a change to tracker store affecting a writeback > property for file F > 2. The store calls IgnoreNextUpdate(F) on the FS miner > 3. The store calls the writeback process to write the actual changes to > the file > 4. The miner sees the update, but also knows that it should ignore it > Thank you again Adrien
Ok, yes I can see that you can't avoid dealing with this scenario, as long as there is a writeback action. No matter what you do, you have to notify the other side about the update/writeback taking place, else, as you say, you will get a read write loop going on. I'll keep this in mind. -- James Hurford [email protected] _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
