[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Slow access to files using UNC path

From: Damien Elmes
Subject: Re: Slow access to files using UNC path
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:50:31 +0900
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> than what?  What alternatives have you considered?  How is the buffer-save
> triggered (is it triggered by a timer, by the user selecting the buffer and
> hitting C-x C-s, by some other command in the main ERC buffer, indirectly by
> save-some-buffers, ...)?

Depending on the user's preferences, all of the above. Also possibly
by certain network activity.

> How about choosing the file name based on the date the buffer is
> created?

Then restarting emacs 20 times in one day will result in an
unnecessarily large amount of files.

> How about using "foo/bar-latest at first and switching to "foo/bar-<date>"
> in before-save-hook?

So theoretically bar-latest will never be written to? So basically
you're suggesting that instead of a blank value in the
buffer-file-name variable, we use something more misleading?

> How about always using "foo/bar-latest" as buffer-file-name and
> link/copy/move the file to "foo/bar-<date>" in after-save-hook?
> How about using "foo/bar-<date>" at buffer creation and in before-save-hook
> update the "<date>" part if necessary (if the date only includes the month,
> it's unlikely to change, and if the user restarts Emacs every day, the same
> will hold even if the date includes the day)?

At the moment emacs does not easily facilitate the dynamic generation
of a file name at save time. Your increasingly complicated suggestions
would solve the problem, but this level of complexity in what is
ultimately a hack in the first place seems unnecessary, IMHO.

If recent changes in emacs are going to prevent "" as a
buffer-file-name from working, then perhaps it would be better to have
a save hook which is called prior to the buffer-file-name being
checked, so these elaborate hacks are not necessary in the first place.

>> as it allows us to compute the file name on demand rather than attempt to
>> keep it updated by something like a timer.
> Hmmm.... doing it in a timer?  That sounds like trouble,




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]