On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> OK good to know. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion about putting >> refresh() into exists(). > > Is the only reason the bug described in the begining of the thread?
It's the only specific reason I have come across. I wanted to check here to see if others had come across similar issues. LyX interacts with files from different parts of the program, as well as from within converters and even from within viewers. > Is adding refresh() into the LFUN you want enough to fix the problem. Yes, but I'm not even sure what I found was a "problem". I can't imagine many users doing what I did to trigger it. > (I'm one of the victims who need to use lyx over sshfs regularly and > so you can imagine what could happen if cache get's clear out all the time Actually I am very bad with building up intuition on these things. I don't have a good feel for how much time this cache saves. I do understand why it saves time, but I thought maybe it only saved a significant amount of time for programs that make an especially large amount of calls to the functions that use the cache (and my guess was that LyX did not make that many calls). But it sounds like that is not the case. I think I understand the problem of using LyX over sshfs. I guess that means that every time the cache needs to refresh, it needs to use sshfs, which does indeed seem like it could take a lot of time. Scott
