From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-02-24 20:40:41
|
Bugs item #1752749, was opened at 2007-07-12 09:25 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jarekczek You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100588&aid=1752749&group_id=588 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: virtual file systems Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 7 Private: No Submitted By: Alan Ezust (ezust) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: FSB: avoid redundant extra VFS requests Initial Comment: I was using the VFS browser to look at some tables in SQL. I clicked the "explode" triangle button next to the DB, accidentally twice. I see that it created 2 requests in the I/O Progress Monitor. If it already created 1, it shouldn't create a second one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Jarek Czekalski (jarekczek) Date: 2012-02-24 12:40 Message: In case of ProjectViewer setDirectory was called twice. Once from VFSBrowser and another one from ProjectViewer. ProjectViewer shouldn't call this method doubling VFSBrowser's action and this will be solved on pv side. In general VFSBrowser changes directory in background. If in the meantime user manages to open another directory, this message would occur. I don't think it's something bad. In other words it says: hold on :) You say you were unable to abort the operations. Maybe you would also be unable to abort a single operation? Are you able to reproduce and test this case? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Ezust (ezust) Date: 2012-02-20 18:39 Message: Also happens from ProjectViewer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Ezust (ezust) Date: 2007-07-13 06:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=935841 Originator: YES Yes, if this is a bug in the VFS then we should fix it there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Sergey V. Udaltsov (svu) Date: 2007-07-12 15:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=681 Originator: NO As it was discussed earlier - shouldn't these things be resolved on the generic VFS code level? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Ezust (ezust) Date: 2007-07-12 09:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=935841 Originator: YES Also, I was unable to abort either of the I/O threads from the I/O progress monitor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100588&aid=1752749&group_id=588 |