On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:17:39PM +0200, Mael Hilléreau wrote: > Le 5 juin 07 à 23:06, Andre Poenitz a écrit : > > >>In the long run this certainly would make sense since our homegrown > >>solution is pretty expensive (checksum of the whole file) compared > >>to the Qt solution (use system notifications when available, polling > >>only as fallback). > > > >Can anybody remind me why we use checksums and not modification or > >access times? Was that the '2 seconds granularity on FAT problem'? > > It would make sense to compute checksum only if the timestamp is > different: it then saves the conversion process in the case no new > modifications exist (i.e. the file was saved but not modified).
That assumes that changed files cannot have the same time stamp. Even if that might hold true in most cases POSIX guarantees only 1 sec resolution, FAT has 2 IIRC. One can have tons of changes in that time.... But I am not sure this actually was the reason we went for checksums... Andre'
