Support for Link Shell Extension

[PeterH]

Just to make sure: retrieving the number of hardlinks is no problem, the code is already present in the app since 2008 but I never used it.

So everybody agrees that it makes sense to add this as another "extra field" to File Info Tips?

To have this info is really good!
(And show "reverse and blinking" if it's greater than one )

I just wonder what this means for performance?

[admin]

Plus, I was wondering if searching all name (hardlink) of a file somehow is a file management task or not? I must to tell it is not essential to me now, as I said I was just wondering.

I'm not aware of a way to do this.

[PeterH]

Plus, I was wondering if searching all name (hardlink) of a file somehow is a file management task or not? I must to tell it is not essential to me now, as I said I was just wondering.

I'm not aware of a way to do this.

Did I understand this wrong:

Just to make sure: retrieving the number of hardlinks is no problem, the code is already present in the app since 2008 but I never used it.

If this refers to the number of hardlinks "for a file", it should be what LittleBiG asks for?
Ah - no: it is not! You know the number of hardlinks for a file, but not the names? Is that right?
And searching these names (all names referring to one file object) would cost the performance I asked for?

[admin]

And searching these names (all names referring to one file object) would cost the performance I asked for?

It's not even possible. At least I have no idea how.

[PeterH]

And searching these names (all names referring to one file object) would cost the performance I asked for?

It's not even possible. At least I have no idea how.

Isn't this easy?
(OK: I don't know what access you have to file information, so I may be completely wrong!)

1) you have a file: I expect by name.
2) This name refers to a (physical) file system object, I'd expect in a form of a Block Address or so?
3) If you can identify such a reference, you can search all other names in the file system for the same reference...

But what I said: even if possible it would be quite performance and time intensive

(It would be nice if file system objects had pointers to all directory entries referring them...)

[admin]

In theory yes, but a quick research does not bring up anything. No time to dig deeper.

(Little side remark: XY is so popular now that I spend most of my time for customer service via email... ... it's great but coding is more fun...)

[j_c_hallgren]

(Little side remark: XY is so popular now that I spend most of my time for customer service via email... ... it's great but coding is more fun...)

The downside of success, I guess?
Hope you have a canned set of responses stored that you can use for most cases...so you can just paste answer #132 as needed, etc.

[admin]

(Little side remark: XY is so popular now that I spend most of my time for customer service via email... ... it's great but coding is more fun...)

The downside of success, I guess?
Hope you have a canned set of responses stored that you can use for most cases...so you can just paste answer #132 as needed, etc.

Yes, but reality often wins over theory. They are masters in inventing new questions.

And there's the stupidity spectrum: some need very detailed answers, preferably several times in slight variations, and other would get insulted by such an answer because it implies they are dumb.

And there's the hopeless maniacs. Whatever you do, it will end up in getting a hate review by them. I learned to smell it coming very early, but I never learned how to stop it. <shrug>

[eil]

i tried Link Shell Extension and got interested. first of all because this utility adds overlay, but even more 'cause with the help of provided driver, it allows to create symbolic links on XP!
and here's where problems start: XY doesn't see the driver(so symbolic link row in Paste Special is greyed), and doesn't show created links(though they are shown in explorer).
is there something that can be done?

[admin]

i tried Link Shell Extension and got interested. first of all because this utility adds overlay, but even more 'cause with the help of provided driver, it allows to create symbolic links on XP!
and here's where problems start: XY doesn't see the driver(so symbolic link row in Paste Special is greyed), and doesn't show created links(though they are shown in explorer).
is there something that can be done?

"doesn't show created links" ... you mean the file count is wrong? existing files are not seen at all?

[eil]

damn, my bad.. your tip about items count made it -i had not all ticks in "Items in Tree and List".
now i'd only wish XY could see this driver to create symlinks on XP, and maybe then it'll be able to copy symlinks targets(now, for XP, it seems to take them as junctions).

[PeterH]

A question to users of LSE on WXP...

LSE says that it intercepts deletes of junction points "from WXP explorer", to avoid deleting of the contents of the destination folder.

Can someone verify if this will also function if I delete a junction point from XY?
(Delete means simple delete, not "Junction / Delete Junction...")

I'd assume it does, but I'm not sure of it...
...if it does it would be the final reason for me to install it.

[eil]

sorry, but no. all features LSE provides are used from context menu, and only delete from there works as desired. the same issue i met is that even though i installed driver for SymLinks on XP, XY doesn't "cooperate" with it -again, only LSE context extension does.

[PeterH]

sorry, but no. all features LSE provides are used from context menu, and only delete from there works as desired. the same issue i met is that even though i installed driver for SymLinks on XP, XY doesn't "cooperate" with it -again, only LSE context extension does.

Thanks for the answer - though I didn't expect it's contents

But I should have read it more careful - it says:
... Link Shell Extension implements a so called CopyHook handler, which intercepts Explorers Delete commands, ...
i.e. they don't intercept "Delete" in windows, but in Explorer.
(As I often had to do with "exit routines" in mainframe operating system, I found my interpretation quite normal )

Sad - but thanks again for clearifying!