![]() On the other hand performance demands that excluded directories are not scanned. A quick-shot workaround to these issues may be to treat filtered files differently from deleted files. It's easy to introduce a severe design flaw into the software.Ĥ. Violating this fundamental philosophy should not be taken lightly. Deleting a file on one side only is not a symmetrical operation. Now swap sides: Copying the file from target to the seemingly empty location on source yields runtime error "file already existing".ģ. Therefore applying a mirror sync will delete the file on target side. This is not necessarily an action the user expected after applying a filter.Ģ. Thous it's associated file on the other side will be deleted. mode sync will treat filtered files the same as deleted files. > I don't know the inners of the softwareįiltering affects many parts of the software, so design changes need to beĮxample: allow filtering on one side only:ġ. Once filter settingsĪre stable, this is no problem anymore as excluded items are not synced, just This is only an issue when newly setting up filtering. >The Mirror behavior may be rather important. If you found some obvious usability impediments don't hesitate to drop a line. > 1) the GUI interface and usage - minor and not very important issues. I am very grateful for your attention which I greatly appreciated. If you wish, ViveVersa pro is the program I would use to look at, though thereĪre some nice options that could be added from others. Representing the filesystem, both lefth and right. ,įilters should be applied to the tree of directories/filenames created, It may be only a matter of when, whether, what. Inners of the software -, at first, it seems it shouldn't be necessary any ![]() Mention on your point 2)) FreeFileSync could be much more useful and usable.įurther - and please apologize my ignorance on this, as I don't know the I believe If you ever consider to change the behavior of Mirror (as you This last reason may force me to choose the second-positioned candidate. This, in my opinion andįor the intended audience (end-users not very IT knowledgeable, may be rather The lesser points I found on FreeFileSync are:ġ) the GUI interface and usage - minor and not very important issues.Ģ) The Mirror behavior (that we have been discussing). Many programs suffered from the same problem. SyncBack wouldn't copy some very long file names and some kind of directories. The reference was ViceVersa Pro, which I use personally for years and knowįreeFileSync surpassed many, even SyncBack (free version - did'n test others). I came across FreeFileSync because I was looking for backup/sync/mirrorĢ) capable of dealing with very long path/filenamesģ) could show a visual selection of filesĪfter evaluating about a dozen, FreeFileSync came among firsts. It surpasses many others - free and commercial. You have done a great work and created a very good Thanks for your very thorough explanation. But itĭefinitively needs a lot more thought put into it before introducing such a Perhaps this is something that could be done. Not treat both sides equally (as it does now) but allow for excluding files on This would be possible though, if filtering did The filter specifies which files participate in synchronization. Consequently if excluded files that exist on target only should be deleted, then excluded files that exist on source only should be copied also. Therefore both sides are treated equally. Mirror sync (as modelled in this tool) is just one special case of a more generic sync-type that allows fine granular direction assignment to different file categories. Deleting these files implicitly doesn't fit with the WYSIWYG approach of the tool.Ģ. If files are excluded via filter they are not traversed during comparison and not shown on screen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |