On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Javier Vegas <jav...@beboinc.com> wrote:
> Sorry, what I meant is issuing the new method watchChildren() on the
> parent node (basically the same as getChildren() but returning just a
> boolean instead of a list of children, because I already know the
> paths of the original children and the ones that were added/deleted so
> I dont need the list again).
You need to analyze this very much more carefully in light of Ben's comment.
> I wasnt thinking (yet) about
> grandchildren, but If I want to watch for them, I will need to do a
> initial getChildren() on the new child that NodeChildrenChanged told
> me about, followed by a watchChildren() after each event. Does this
> make sense?
That is close.
The watch has to be set when you do the getChildren to avoid having a crack
that a change could fall into between the getChildren and setting the watch.