On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Is it not costly (as in very costly) to get the canonical path ? >> >> That's what I've been told but I've never measured it. >> >> Currently DirectoryScanner avoids looking at the canonical path >> unless followSymlinks is false. The problem with infinite loops >> caused by symlinks only happens if followSymlinks is true - so any >> solution to the problem will make DirectoryScanner look up >> canonical paths more often and thus probably make scanning slower. >> > > Instead of checking the canonical path, we could maybe check to path > in which we want to recurse.
I don't think I understand what you mean here. The directory listing of base will show a single child directory A with no indication that this is a link (the only way to find out is to get the canonical path). > The only case where we need to check for symlink is when we are in > A/base and want to recurse in a directory name A. How do we know this would be a recursion without checking the canonical path? Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
