GNU bug report logs - #26126
26.0.50; file-notify-rm-watch removes arbitrary watches

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 26126 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, politza <at> hochschule-trier.de
Subject: bug#26126: 26.0.50; file-notify-rm-watch removes arbitrary watches
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:44:55 +0200

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
> Cc: politza <at> hochschule-trier.de,  26126 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:23:47 +0100
> 
> > 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.

We know that about our handlers, yes.  But that doesn't have to be the
end of the story.  Emacs is extensible.

> Do you expect other implementations of remote handlers?

Yes, why not?  It's much easier to do that in Lisp than in C, where
the local handlers should be implemented.

> > 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.

See above.  Admittedly, this is a minor point, so not worth arguing if
you disagree with my POV.

> I've tried to implement remote handlers to behave exactly like the
> local ones. That's the Tramp philosophy.

Right, but in this case there are 2 flavors of local handlers, and the
question is on which of them to model the remote ones.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.