Log In     Register    

Help and Support
Ask a question, report a problem, request a feature...
<<  Back To Forum

It shouldn't hash files that I don't want to share

by Guest on 2017/11/07 03:50:49 AM    
I've unticked the share box for a subfolder of my share folder but it's still hashing all the files which is a complete waste of time. Please change this.
by Guest on 2017/11/07 05:26:21 PM    
it is supposed to hash everything in a folder you add to the library.
by smaragdus on 2017/11/09 06:11:17 PM    
I would appreciate an option to exclude sharing of files by extension- for example in settings there might be an editable exclusion list (".ini", ".log", ".torrent", etc) and when the user chooses to exclude file types files of the excluded types will not be indexed.
by Guest on 2017/11/09 08:12:19 PM    
That's just bad programming, it's always better to optimise rather than just saying it's supposed to waste time hashing terabytes of nonsense for no reason
by Guest on 2017/11/10 04:09:06 PM    
It is fairly easy to add file type filtering to the hashing routine especially if a registry or local settings file is used to store the current file types selected, this can then be loaded prior to any folder scanning and non-relevant file types ignored, and supports the existence of a default set of common file types.

One small annoyance exists for files that are already indexed prior to any settings change, so presumably a message box should pop up to inform the user that due to a settings change (a worker thread I suggest to undertake the actual work) there may be a small delay while any selected folder locations will be scanned for un-matching or newly matching files and the relevant action taken upon finding either (add/delete from shared file library).

whilst this sounds a quick operation please be aware that there are hurdles to overcome in terms of file/folder access permissions and threading in general so it will require some fine tuning so whilst I'm confident the devs here will deliver as always they need to know we are patient.
by Guest on 2017/11/10 06:28:38 PM    
That's just bad programming, it's always better to optimise rather than just saying it's supposed to waste time hashing terabytes of nonsense for no reason

LOL @ "Bad Programming" . Its called logic, this is a file sharing network (for those of you that can't seem to grasp that). You add files/folders that you WANT to share. It's quite simple remove any sub folders/files you DONT want to SHARE. Why anyone would add folders/files that they don't want shared is i'm sorry to say just plain ridiculous lol. Kinda like going through a car wash and not wanting the soap, brushes, or water turned on, get a grip :)
by Guest on 2017/11/13 01:24:14 AM    
I am confused. I see people talking about selecting shared folders, but I only see the ability to set one folder for downloads under Settings/Files. I do not see any way to set a share folder. Please enlighten me.
Thanks
by Guest on 2017/11/13 02:24:48 AM    
Actually I now see that there is no separation of download or shared folders. That's the problem.
I would like to keep them separate. Any chance that will be implemented soon?
by BugMagnet on 2017/11/19 09:34:27 AM    
guest said:  LOL @ "Bad Programming" . Its called logic,.......

fopnu, like the venerable winMX v3.54b4, has sophisticated library share support.
This allows adding a folder with perhaps many layers of subfolders. Adding the parent folder does not force sharing all within, but allows user to decide which files/subfolders are to be shared out of a bigger library.

This feature was added to eliminate the need to create a duplicative "share" folder, critical for users with huge private libraries who wish to share some of their file archives but not all.

After adding such a parent 'share' folder, one can either mark it for sharing and then unshare selected folders/files within OR, mark the parent folder as unshared, then override that by selecting certain folders/files within to be shared. Each user is thereby empowered to decide which method works best for them, based on their own personal library organization. What is optimal for some might not be so for others.

As to the original question, hashing of unshared files/folders, I don't have enough comprehension to have a valid opinion. Does the hashing occur only once, when a new file.folder is added? or is it rehashed on each startup? And, if files/folders not marked as shared are added under some parent folder, why would there be a need to hash them? Should the hash process be postponed until such files/folders are selected for sharing?,




This web site is powered by Super Simple Server