NetEZ.com NetEZ Community
Enter City & State or US Zip Code:
Change your local weather options
Google
WWW NetEZ.com

NetEZ.com Forum Index  
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

blog: path too long, sorted!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NetEZ.com Forum Index -> xplorer˛ Professional
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nikos
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 12346
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:59 am    Post subject: blog: path too long, sorted! Reply with quote

here's the comment area for today's blog post found at
http://zabkat.com/blog/21Jun09-deep-folder-hierarchies.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Kilmatead
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 829
Location: Dublin

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

8'' 1.2 MB floppy drives?  And only $13500?  Takes me back... never mind the moniker of "Portable"... but compared to a 370, I suppose it would do...

Not to split the hairs of nomenclature, but there never was a Pentium Quad Core, that name died a few years back with the (then) new Conroe Architecture, otherwise known as Core 2.  But what's in a name?  Or a nanometre advancement?

Now, if I could only convince VS to stop using piddly names like 'C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft.vc90.debugcrt_1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b_9.0.30729.1_none_bb1f6aa1308c35eb\msvcr90d.dll' and nesting project labels unnecessarily, it would be a banner day.

8" floppies... just like vinyl, but more sensitive to fingerprints... and they never fit well in the glovebox...

They did, however, have a rather painfully satisfying "snapping" sound when pushed a bit too hurriedly into their drive sheathes... 1.2MB went a bit further then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pschroeter
Bronze Member
Bronze Member


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:36 pm    Post subject: I don't understand forbidden characters in file names. Reply with quote

I understand what (* . " / \ [ ] : ; | = ,) they are, I just don't understand why. I would think there is a container for the file name in the system and it should be able to hold just about anything I can type. I know  \  are part of paths, but why should it matter? Is the path and file name recorded together in the same part of the system? I'm not sure why the system should care about several of the other characters either.

My main annoyance is there has been many times that I have wanted to use a question mark in a file name and have forgotten I can't use one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nikos
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 12346
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you can't use these characters in paths because then they'd be ambiguous
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
WimdeLange
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 302
Location: NL

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Junctions. I always forget them. There is another option to shorten names, but that is not available in xplorer2. In the command window you can use SUBST
SUBST Z: c:\level1\level2\level3\level4\level5\level6\  and you now go to the Z: drive to access the data

And it is more or less available in xplorer2, use a command, something like $SUBST Z: "$F"
and another $SUBST Z: /D
_________________
Groetjes,
  Wim de Lange
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
googlymoogly
New Member
New Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So does that mean xplorer2 doesn't support paths over MAX_PATH in length? (The blog post really doesn't say.)

\\?\ and \\?\UNC\ will work if you use the Unicode versions of CreateFile/OpenFile/MoveFile etc. Bear in mind it will bypass pathname canonicalization though, so you have to roll your own checks (for paths that come from user input).

The standard Explorer does not use these functions; instead they rely on the standard ANSi ones. The shell in Vista does some trickeries behind the scenes (or so claims Microsoft) by automatically shortening paths, using the 8.3 names (but those are not always available), so it's a little better than 2K/XP (again, so Microsoft claims).

And that sucks balls.


Last edited by googlymoogly on Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nikos
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 12346
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nothing supports paths longer than MAX_PATH in windows. The long versions are illusions in the heads of the people that wrote the API documentation Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
googlymoogly
New Member
New Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Incorrect. I got un4seen to add support for long paths for the music player XMPlay just recently (written in Win32).

The backup/sync program ViceVersa Pro has official support for paths > MAX_PATH as well, and I believe SyncBack Pro/SE does too.
http://www.tgrmn.com/web/kb/item31.htm

Here's a blog entry (actually, three) detailing this and possible solutions when working with .NET: http://blogs.msdn.com/bclteam/archive/2007/02/13/long-paths-in-net-part-1-of-3-kim-hamilton.aspx to show that it's not made-up.

In .NET they call (via P/Invoke) the Unicode versions.

If xplorer2 is an ANSI application, you need to explicitly call MoveFileW()/CreateFileW()/etc (in kernel32.dll).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nikos
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 12346
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xplorer2 is unicode and last time i tried (at least up to XP) these things didn't work. Anyway there's not much point having deep paths that only a single tool can handle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
googlymoogly
New Member
New Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree, but it's your loss.

This (legacy) limitation in Windows is pretty horrible, and I've been bitten by it many times. Not only because of self-created directory trees, but sometimes within %APPDATA% (the path to which is really quite long to start with (fixed somewhat in Vista, unless it's in the roaming profile)).

I've also "lost" files when copying/moving directories using Explorer because it fails to access these files. Before Vista (at least I BELIEVE Vista has fixed it -- I do not use it myself (XP here)), it didn't even pop up an error box saying the path was too long when copying to a long path; the file copy transaction just silently skipped over these files.

It's high time Microsoft did something about it, but as long as third party developers don't fix their own programs so that the only applications that lack the support comes from, well, Microsoft, then there's little incentive for Microsoft to get off their lazy asses and do something about it in Win32, in my book.

Personally, I think file managers should be the ones to lead the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NetEZ.com Forum Index -> xplorer˛ Professional All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP