| 1 | | I'd have to look in detail, but IIRC I got the impression the watcher was just keeping an eye out to change the icon from empty to containing files. Also we have the problem then that once the item is in the trash, the reference to the original path has been lost - I think it kinda needs to be atomic and there won't be a way around that. However, the idea of refactoring it out I would agree with, as an option at least, in that case bin/trash could reduce down to a very small number of lines, just probably not in the watcher. |
| | 1 | I'd have to look in detail, but IIRC I got the impression the watcher was just keeping an eye out to change the icon from empty to containing files. Also we have the problem then that once the item is in the trash, the reference to the original path has been lost - I think it kinda needs to be atomic and there won't be a way around that. However, the idea of refactoring it out I would agree with, as an option at least, in that case bin/trash could reduce down to a very small number of lines, just probably not in the watcher |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | Edit: sorry, missed the comment above on my phone. I think the trash was kind of like a unison between directories, I don't know if it is a quesy underneath but I saw a mention to being a model aggregating all the trash directories on mounted filesystems. I'd vote for having one unambiguous programmatic way of moving a given entry or set of entries into the trash, presumably as part of the tracker kit, and if needed, refactor anything else to make use of this. |
