Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dante_]

I seriously believe  you should add a flag we could use before or after a line on shareddir.dat, something like:

Code: [Select]

/path/to/directory1
recursive /path/to/directory2
directory1 would be shared non recursively and directory2 would be shared recursively, and scanned regularly (every hour or more often, perhaps a configurable parameter on aMule.conf

[Stu Redman]

And how should we integrate this feature into our GUI, which creates shareddir.dat?

[Dante_]

I guess the GUI should add the "recursive" tag  on the directory line it creates when you click on a folder to make it recursively shared, instead of adding all the subdirs it scanned on the moment.
Anyway, I don't even know if this is the way the GUI adds folders recursively, as I only use amuled on a headless server. Just trying to deduce.

[^marcell^]

I guess the GUI should add the "recursive" tag  on the directory line it creates when you click on a folder to make it recursively shared, instead of adding all the subdirs it scanned on the moment.

Yes, that is the basic idea behind it.

Anyway, I don't even know if this is the way the GUI adds folders recursively, as I only use amuled on a headless server. Just trying to deduce.

The GUI doesn't add folders recursively. You have to select each folder for which you want its content to be shared.

The question was how the user should differ between selecting a folder and selecting the folder and all its subfolders recursively. While this might sound simple for the command line, there has to be a way to do it in the GUI as well. Any suggestions are therefore very welcome.

[Kry]

Uh... the GUI does do that, phoenix....

[^marcell^]

Sorry, you are right.

Idea: if the user right-clicks a folder it is marked with a special color indicating that it's shared recursively and scanned recursively for new files AND(!) folders with files.

[Stu Redman]

We had this discussion some time ago and Kry vetoed changes because of backward compatibility problems or something IIRC.
How is eMule behaving at the moment? If we change anything here we have to break the way we store our shared folders. Then we should use the same file format as eMule (again).

[^marcell^]

I see backward compatibility issues only if one would try to open a shareddir.dat with recusrive folders in an older aMule version that is not aware of that feature.

[Kry]

I don't remember why I vetoed it, so let's pretend I didn't.

[Stu Redman]

I see backward compatibility issues only if one would try to open a shareddir.dat with recusrive folders in an older aMule version that is not aware of that feature.

Which is exactly what people are doing who switch back and forth between SVN and 2.2.6. 
eMule isn't using any recursive folder sharing either I see.

[^marcell^]

I will check how the stable version would handle lines starting with "recursive". Maybe there's a better way to have both working with the same file syntax.

[Stu Redman]

How about /path/to/it/. or /path/to/it/* instead of a "recursive" keyword?

[^marcell^]

This might be worth a look.
Still no objections to this feature? The "recursive" keyword makes the file easier to read.
The asterisk could be interpreted as to share only the files in that folder, but not recursively.

[Stu Redman]

You found the thread I was too lazy to search.

I don't remember why I vetoed it, so let's pretend I didn't.

The "recursive" keyword makes the file easier to read.

Please check what an older client does when it finds such a line. It should neither crash nor destroy the line if possible.

[^marcell^]

Please check what an older client does when it finds such a line. It should neither crash nor destroy the line if possible.

It doesn't crash, but it omits those lines when updating the file so they are not in there anymore.