Thanks for your answers. I am a little bit surprised, I thought timestamps were on the milliseconds scale. @Krzysztof: Yes, you are right, an event-based interface is far superior to the basic polling approach I took. At present, a couple seconds granularity is fine with my use case so I don't care too much getting more precise notifications, but I'd rather be notified by the kernel than going through the hassle of polling it myself. I played a bit with inotify (through a Java binding) a year ago and found it a bit cumbersome to wield as one has to monitor explicitly all nodes in a tree. Maybe I am wrong. Moreover, I am not aware of a portable way of doing this. I would appreciate pointers and advices on these matters. Thanks again, arnaud 2010/12/16 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki <gtener@gmail.com>:
If this is not a toy program I would really suggest using something that is builtin in the OS of choice. On Linux there is inotify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inotify), but I'm pretty sure that other OSes have similar interfaces. The "modification time" method seems really fragile and I probably not very efficient as well. Best regards, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 17:50, Arnaud Bailly <arnaud.oqube@gmail.com> wrote:
actually, IRL the code works as expected. Might it be possible that the speed of test execution is greater than the granularity of the system's modification timestamp?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe