On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I take the example,
> I <-\
> / \ |
>/ \ |
> B C|
> / \ |
> / \ |
> file.txt A--/
>
> and I start with /, with the pattern /**/*.txt,
2008/9/10 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Does that sound OK?
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> Of course we'd first check when we hit the name for
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to
> >> possibly have client code remove duplicate entries if it wants to???
> >
> > Not s
Code is in, documentation is not. Please help me find good names and
default values 8-)
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, combining suggestions by Gilles and Dominique here is what we
> could do:
>
> * add a new sttribute for maxSymlinkRecursionDepth (better n
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to
>> possibly have client code remove duplicate entries if it wants to???
>
> Not sure what you mean here.
Have an new accessor on DirectoryScanner to find out
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does that sound OK?
>
> Sounds good to me.
Of course we'd first check when we hit the name for the (MAX + 1)th
time not for the MAXth time since the f
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does that sound OK?
Sounds good to me. I'd simply add a warning indicating
maxSymlinkTraversal was hit. "User" or verbose level is debatable
again. Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to
possibly hav
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of
> the files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you
> have already looped one or more time (including multiple time the
> same files).
We'd detect the
I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of the
files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you have
already looped one or more time (including multiple time the same
files).
This "rollback" will be required if you want to provide a "clean"
fileset when the pat
OK, combining suggestions by Gilles and Dominique here is what we
could do:
* add a new sttribute for maxSymlinkRecursionDepth (better name
appreciated) and make it default to 5 (up for discussion as well).
This limits how many times the same symlink can be followed.
* Keep a stack of simple
2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 ?
>>
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 measur
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
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a nutshell, it seems we should keep track of the
> canonical paths scanned and refuse to recurse them for
> a path of infinite depth (i.e. one containing "**").
The situation of the testcase is (you'll need a monospaced font 8-)
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
Is it not costly (as in very costly) to get the canonical path ?
I would be for the lowest tech possible here.
Peter
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> as Issue 45499 shows
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as Issue 45499 shows DirectoryScanner can run into infinite loops by
> symbolic links that point to parent directories of the scanned
> directory.
Instead of trying to track traversed directories using a stack or set,
what
In a nutshell, it seems we should keep track of the
canonical paths scanned and refuse to recurse them for
a path of infinite depth (i.e. one containing "**").
It could be possible to match a path containing a
recursive symlink by > 1 path of different lengths.
So the infinite depth case is the o
18 matches
Mail list logo
