This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 66456 - [50cat] does not reconginsed when file changed externally
Summary: [50cat] does not reconginsed when file changed externally
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: platform
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Filesystems (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 blocker with 1 vote (vote)
Assignee: _ rkubacki
URL:
Keywords:
: 58037 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-11 09:52 UTC by johnbreen
Modified: 2008-12-23 14:28 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description johnbreen 2005-10-11 09:52:56 UTC
[ JDK VERSION : 1.6 ]

Opened a java file in the editor. When to our external SCM application and checked out the file.
The editor did not pick up the changed status and left the file as read only in the editor.
had to close the file and repoen it before I could edit it.
Comment 1 Miloslav Metelka 2005-10-11 16:59:01 UTC
Reassigning to openide/editor for evaluation.
Comment 2 Petr Nejedly 2005-10-12 12:16:39 UTC
Filesystems aparently don't fire an event if the file gets older than it was
when last checked (e.g. update to clean copy from VCS).
Comment 3 rmatous 2005-10-13 14:06:52 UTC
Filesystem impl. really relly on the fact that modified files are newer. If
timestamp is changed backward this change isn't captured which is source of
reported problem. 

There is easy fix for this problem but this fix unavoidably means that perf.
regression will be caused because instance of FileObject caches
System.currentTimeMillis() when initialized. This sort of initialization must
have been changed to directly touch a disk and call lastModified.

I would like to ask Performance guys if this change is acceptable. If not then
this issue will be closed as WONTFIX. Radim, please evaluate and close or
reassign back.
Comment 4 Marian Mirilovic 2006-01-03 10:51:19 UTC
Too late for NB5.0, please reevaluate.
Comment 5 Petr Nejedly 2006-01-03 12:42:44 UTC
*** Issue 58037 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 6 _ rkubacki 2006-02-06 12:49:45 UTC
To jonhbreen: what is your SCM? Can we find more details how it works?

To Radek: can we check the timestamp for a different value rather than newer time?
Comment 7 _ rkubacki 2006-04-25 15:35:09 UTC
It is possible that we will change this in the future. Perhaps with a special
flag to turn more agressive timestamp checks and keep current bahavior as a
default. Closing now as wontfix.
Comment 8 Quality Engineering 2008-12-23 14:28:56 UTC
This issue had *1 votes* before move to platform component