Feature Request: File/Directory Unlocking

greening@bigtribe.com · Post by **greening@bigtribe.com** » 2004 Aug 05, 19:29

One of the differences between xplorer2 and Windows Explorer is that xplorer2 leaves directories open while they are being viewed. Windows Explorer peeks at what is there, refreshes the view of the directory, then closes and unlocks the directory. This second behavior would be very handy in a broadly utilized tool like xplorer2.

Although keeping the directory open perhaps provides some limited efficiency advantages for xplorer2, it really becomes a huge irritation if you are using xplorer2 while you are developing software or doing any major IT sort of thing.

For example, I really like using xplorer2 to browse output build directories. But then I like to blow them away (outside xplorer2) with "make clean" or "ant clean" etc.

And then, guess what, I have an open xplorer2 browser on some build directory, and the make/ant operation complains and fails to do its job. Instead, I think xplorer2 should do what Windows Explorer does, closing the connection to the directory when not in use, and if the directory disappears display something like "directory deleted".

This problem has been mentioned several times before by other people. Nikos, any chance you can fix it for a long-time user who paid the pro fee?

Dan Greening

Post by **nikos** » 2004 Aug 06, 07:17

(how many times i've answered this?)

the difference between x2 and explorer is that x2 sets the current directory on the folder being browsed. That's how you can execute commands on the files you see without path information. So it is not just a thing of "fixing it". This is by design. If i remove it then many things will stop working

greening@bigtribe.com · Post by **greening@bigtribe.com** » 2004 Aug 06, 07:51

If you answer the same request many times, then perhaps what is being asked is important to a major subset of your customers.

It's worth taking a few moments to figure out what the user requirements are, seeing whether you might need to handle two different classes of customers by providing a user-option, or whether by some thoughtful algorithm you might satisfy both.

Obviously, since many people are asking for this, there is something important here. You can't just ignore it, just because it doesn't seem important to you. I almost didn't buy xplorer2 because it had this behavior. Perhaps if you figure out a good solution, you'll get many more customers.

Or perhaps you need to provide something in an FAQ that explains what great advantages you get in exchange for this disadvantage, and how to use them. I, for one, don't ever use this command feature you refer to, as far as I know.

Post by **nikos** » 2004 Aug 06, 12:26

i'll add a registry tweak for 1003 to turn off this "SetCurrentDirectory" feature. However i'm not 100% sure of the full repercussions so it should be used with extreme caution!

MKairys · Post by **MKairys** » 2004 Aug 06, 12:53

Nikos, what if you were to release/reacquire the current directory when the X2 window loses/gains focus?

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2004 Aug 06, 13:07

@ not 100% sure of the full repercussions -
It sounds like we may be in for a little scavenger hunt if there's an expectation to document limitations resulting from the proposed tweak.

Post by **nikos** » 2004 Aug 06, 13:29

for example relative paths like ".." won't be recognized in the addressbar
"unlock unless focused" won't have much of a difference when it comes to deleting folders from the tree etc

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2004 Aug 06, 18:26

okay, the quick & dirty 'fix' is IN for v1.0.0.3

(2^15 bit [= 32768] in binMiscOptions key)
But it's notably dirty in that while it unlocks the folder to permit deletion, it doesn't check to see if other apps have a file open in the folder, and deletes the folder anyway.

(except open msOffice files are recognized, & do inhibit folder deletion)

If that's the way some folks want it, I suppose it's ok;
but I certainly won't be using that setting on a regular basis.

greening@bigtribe.com · Post by **greening@bigtribe.com** » 2004 Aug 06, 18:45

Just want to make sure the user requirement is clear.

It is not that I want to delete the folder from xplorer2. The folder is being deleted from OUTSIDE xplorer2 by another application, such as "make clean" or "ant clean". You are just keeping xplorer2 from interfering with those outside applications when xplorer2 is browsing a subdirectory that is being deleted by that OUTSIDE application.

If running apps are using a file inside a directory being deleted, I think you will find that the folder cannot be deleted anyway. Open files in a directory or sub-directory will prevent that directory from being deleted.

If you make this option available to others, I think you'll find people will want it as the default behavior. I'll put $20 that a survey of users will prefer this new behavior to keeping the directory open.

And THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I am hugely grateful that you heard my pleas. With this change I can likely get rid of Windows Explorer.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Dan Greening

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2004 Aug 06, 18:59

I understand -- my point was that not all apps notify the shell the same way when they have a file open. In which case the folder can STILL be deleted.

(but then, I suppose it's really not an x2 issue, in spite of my complaint, above. [edit]NO, a double check shows there IS an x2 issue: folder can be deleted with open file(s) if GIOPT_NOSETCURDIR is set, but not if it is not. [/edit]

)

greening@bigtribe.com · Post by **greening@bigtribe.com** » 2004 Aug 06, 19:22

When you say "open file", what application has this file open specifically? Maybe this is part of my confusion over why this is a big deal.

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2004 Aug 06, 19:27

I tried a few different apps:

Editor² [a text editor]
TSE-Pro [another text editor]
ACD-See [a pic-file viewer with limited editing]

I also tried Excel & Word, but they wouldn't permit folder deletion if they had a file open in the folder

greening@bigtribe.com · Post by **greening@bigtribe.com** » 2004 Aug 06, 19:53

Interesting. I guess it's a haphazard thing. Probably some app developers think it's important to keep the file in consideration from being deleted or modified, others not. Most likely the developers went through (if they thought about it all) what we are going through now: Do you want your users to be able to delete the file from underneath the application or not?

Anyway, with xplorer2, I really appreciate that I now have more flexibility. I don't really need xplorer2 to "protect me from myself".

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2004 Aug 06, 20:05

nor do I (until I find myself inarush & becoming careless -- & then I appreciate it)

I expect that this feature will remain a registry tweak, to keep the casual user from potentially destructive activity.

bright · Post by **bright** » 2005 Aug 16, 08:17

Yes, it's an old discussion, but I just have to report this again since it will prevent me of buying this program...

xplorer HANGS when I try to let it delete a folder it has currently open!

I find two things very annoying:
- why the heck does it try to delete while it knows it has the folder locked?
- why is the folder locked when the USER tries to delete it?

This is a major bug, despite everyone says. I would think the correct programming order when the user tries to delete a folder from the tree should be this:
- unlock the 'current directory'
- remove folder
- set the new 'current directory' to the previous or next folder in the tree, as opposed to an option set by the user.

Yes, I know there is an option to remove the 'current directory', so that it is not locked, however, then there is no 'corrent folder' on any (dos) command issued.