on further investigation of x2 i find that it really doesn't like to operate in folders containing web-links. -- may be related to what i reported earlier as x2 following some ftp-links (actually returned some valid remote directory listings)
specifically, when browsing in 'documents and settings' under W2K and also XP, there can be LOTS of web-links in the 'temporary internet files' folder. (Unless you limit the size & history of these temporary 'files' it can take a while for x2 to pick through them -- same goes for any file explorer.) I recognise the slowing is due to sheer numbers -- often thousands; but the bug/issue is that x2 crashes on certain of these link-files when they are selected, but not when first catalogued for display. {dbmon ouput, below}
{in contrast, 2x does not even display the link-files; although it reports 'Some items in the folder were not accessible', and m$ explorer displays all the items}
(and, Yes, it's time foe me to clean out my temp-inet-filz, but that's another issue.)
=====dbmon_output_follows=======================
[dbmon output removed from posting by author 3-oct-2003 (following Nikos' examination & comment & release of v.46 =fg= ]
=====end_dbmon_output...(x2alpha45 crashed)===============
[x2] 'Find Files' slows, crashes on temp internet link-files
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
[x2] 'Find Files' slows, crashes on temp internet link-files
Last edited by fgagnon on 2003 Oct 03, 18:38, edited 1 time in total.
that crash would have occured anyway you tried to browse that folder, due to a very long name.
you can exclude these folders using an exclusion filter (e.g. "c:\, -*history*") hoping that you don't have any other folders with "history" in their name -- or use the full path
i am thinking of a list of folders that will be permanently excluded from searches, stored in the registry so that you don't have to specify them every time. But that will rob you from ever searching in such folders. Deal?
you can exclude these folders using an exclusion filter (e.g. "c:\, -*history*") hoping that you don't have any other folders with "history" in their name -- or use the full path
i am thinking of a list of folders that will be permanently excluded from searches, stored in the registry so that you don't have to specify them every time. But that will rob you from ever searching in such folders. Deal?
WHOA!!
Better have some checks and balances:
* The list should be editable directly from x2.
* When some of the items from the exclusion list actually qualify-- but are not listed because of the ban on them-- then x2 should warn the user (just like the warning x2 gives when some directories cannot be accessed during the search.)
Better have some checks and balances:
* The list should be editable directly from x2.
* When some of the items from the exclusion list actually qualify-- but are not listed because of the ban on them-- then x2 should warn the user (just like the warning x2 gives when some directories cannot be accessed during the search.)
narayan has a good point: need checks & balances.
I suspect some thought needs to go into investigating alternatives.
While one USUALLY would want to stay out of such folders, there will be times when one needs to see what's there. (May need to let this sit for a while so subconscious parallel thought processing has a chance to consider.)
What does x2 do in acquisition/search that m$ explorer doesn't?
{mentioned because m$ bundled product sees the folder contents w/o crash -- not because of any love for it}
Is there a potentail path keying off in the way 2x operates to not display the troublesome items, but gives notice of that fact? Perhaps building a switch that can be turned on by user when he/she wnts to see the troublesome items?
or soliciting ideas from community for how others who may have run into this have found work-arounds?
hmmm ....
I suspect some thought needs to go into investigating alternatives.
While one USUALLY would want to stay out of such folders, there will be times when one needs to see what's there. (May need to let this sit for a while so subconscious parallel thought processing has a chance to consider.)
What does x2 do in acquisition/search that m$ explorer doesn't?
{mentioned because m$ bundled product sees the folder contents w/o crash -- not because of any love for it}
Is there a potentail path keying off in the way 2x operates to not display the troublesome items, but gives notice of that fact? Perhaps building a switch that can be turned on by user when he/she wnts to see the troublesome items?
or soliciting ideas from community for how others who may have run into this have found work-arounds?
hmmm ....
well get .46 and see for yourself!
despite the presense of the black list, there's a loophole;
if you start the search at any blacklisted folder then it won't be blocked since x2 only tests subfolders
at any rate you can just empty the blacklist via registry editing
(better leave some string in there though to avoid x2 recreating it -- anything will do, even invalid paths like "foo")
or you can have the main registry key (window instance) constrained and have a different registry key for full searches where the black list is empty. This is easily managed via Window menu
despite the presense of the black list, there's a loophole;
if you start the search at any blacklisted folder then it won't be blocked since x2 only tests subfolders
at any rate you can just empty the blacklist via registry editing
(better leave some string in there though to avoid x2 recreating it -- anything will do, even invalid paths like "foo")
or you can have the main registry key (window instance) constrained and have a different registry key for full searches where the black list is empty. This is easily managed via Window menu
That's a very effective fix. Thanks, Nikos!
... providing one knows à priori what folders to blacklist.
I blacklisted my problem WSFTP_Pro 'folder' and verified its effectiveness & that searching in a blacklisteed folder can still be done when starting within it.
And I would still like to see a notification of encounter with blacklist during a search ( i told you before i want egg in my beer).
Will try to verify the same level of goodness on XP system at home tonight.
( Why do I have the sense that this is a short-term work-around for some generic issues with objects involving links to off-local-platform content. )
later ...
... providing one knows à priori what folders to blacklist.
I blacklisted my problem WSFTP_Pro 'folder' and verified its effectiveness & that searching in a blacklisteed folder can still be done when starting within it.
And I would still like to see a notification of encounter with blacklist during a search ( i told you before i want egg in my beer).
Will try to verify the same level of goodness on XP system at home tonight.
( Why do I have the sense that this is a short-term work-around for some generic issues with objects involving links to off-local-platform content. )
later ...
While I have not tried the banned areas feature, my logic is that the user might put some folders in it and forget later. In all subsequent searches, this will be silently left out. THAT is potentially dangerous.
So the user at least should get a mild warning that such areas were bypassed in the search. He can check up the areas if he wants.
At a later date, this setting/checking should be possible directly from a x2 menu (not a registry tweak, which is difficult for many people).
So the user at least should get a mild warning that such areas were bypassed in the search. He can check up the areas if he wants.
At a later date, this setting/checking should be possible directly from a x2 menu (not a registry tweak, which is difficult for many people).
Nikos,
While your comment may be true for the examples that triggered adding this capability, I was thinking of the case which narayan expressed so well -- in fact I have already added some folders to the list -- and i suspect that i will forget what i have done at some time in the future. (It's happenning more and more lately!)
A side note (unrelated to functionality) is that I agree with narayan's suggested nomenclature: "banned area" -- it's more descriptive of the function. (Cosmetic, yes; but cosmetics make the world more tolerable!)
Another bit of info is positive report that functionality/behaviour/etc checks out on my XP (as well as on the office W2K machine as reported earlier). I'll try my wife's W98, too (if she'll let me), and let you know.
While your comment may be true for the examples that triggered adding this capability, I was thinking of the case which narayan expressed so well -- in fact I have already added some folders to the list -- and i suspect that i will forget what i have done at some time in the future. (It's happenning more and more lately!)
A side note (unrelated to functionality) is that I agree with narayan's suggested nomenclature: "banned area" -- it's more descriptive of the function. (Cosmetic, yes; but cosmetics make the world more tolerable!)
Another bit of info is positive report that functionality/behaviour/etc checks out on my XP (as well as on the office W2K machine as reported earlier). I'll try my wife's W98, too (if she'll let me), and let you know.
ok, i'll take that off my todo list (which is too long neway).
on a to-be-posted-on-another-thread topic, i have encountered crashes of uncertain origen, when i haven't had the dbmon ON. Although I suspect why, I'll wait until I've captured dbmon output & have something specific to send.
and another side-note -- with v46, dbmon started working on xp w/o admin privileges, whereas it hadn't before (actually it had worked as far as capturing output, but couldn't paste output to clipboard. so i ran dep.walker)
more later...
on a to-be-posted-on-another-thread topic, i have encountered crashes of uncertain origen, when i haven't had the dbmon ON. Although I suspect why, I'll wait until I've captured dbmon output & have something specific to send.
and another side-note -- with v46, dbmon started working on xp w/o admin privileges, whereas it hadn't before (actually it had worked as far as capturing output, but couldn't paste output to clipboard. so i ran dep.walker)
more later...