Subject: Re: bug#26126: 26.0.50; file-notify-rm-watch removes arbitrary watches

From: Michael Albinus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:23:47 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> We've discussed this a while ago, main reason (IIRC) was to achieve
>> same behaviour for the different libraries.
>
> That discussion was about local notifications, where indeed the
> situation is like you describe.
>
> But Andreas asks about calling remote handlers, about which we by
> definition know much less.

Nope. We know exactly which remote handlers are called, and how they
behave. Do you expect other implementations of remote handlers? I don't,
because I'm not aware of other candidates but inotifywait and gvfs-monitor-dir.

> In that context, it might indeed make sense to pass the file, not its
> parent directory, because the handler can easily reconstruct the
> parent directory if that's what it needs.  By contrast, there's no way
> for the handler to intuit the file which was stripped.
>
> WDYT?

I still don't understand what's the difference between local and remote
events in your eyes. I've tried to implement remote handlers to behave
exactly like the local ones. That's the Tramp philosophy.

Best regards, Michael.