[<<]Message[>>]        Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  4713
Date     :  2003-06-02
Author   :  John Vu
Subject  :  Re: Exclusion Question
Size(KB) :  3


Hi Garyy,

Hope you're well. Do you know how I can stop getting the robocopy email? Thank

Regards,
John.

garrydeane  wrote:
--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto  wrote:

> On the other hand, in the case of the exclusion items,
> I personally see more advantages (than disadvantages if
> any) to change the behavior of the exclusion items to
> apply on both the source and the destination. To be
> honest, I can even accept the "exceptional" behavior
> with the exclusion items. But, we still do not have
> the courage to change that for two reasons:
> 
> 1. possible confusion that may arise by applying the
> exclusion items on both sides while all other
> switches (most notably the inclusion items which
> should not apply to the /Z action).
> 
> 2. the change would break some existing batch files
> in strange ways.
> 
> So, probably the best remedy for this situation
> would be to create a separate set of exclusion mechanism
> specifically for the /Z (and possibly for /RD and /RX)
> actions. But, this is a can of worm (what about all
> other switches that would affect the items in the
> destination in similar fashion?)

I agree that this would be a can of worms. I believe you'd need a 
whole new class of exclusion parameters - exclude if in source; 
exclude if in dest; exclude if in either source or dest. To make 
things worse, this would need to be applied to /X, /EX and XXCOPYX.

> Lastly, let me point out that the /CLONE operation
> is to duplicate the contents of the source directory
> in the destination as closely as possible. Wishing
> exceptions in this regard is already a contradiction
> to the purpose of /CLONE.
> 
> In conclusion, creating a dummy file to nullify the
> effect of the /Z action is a valid and useful technique.
> 
> I would like to listen to other arguments on this issue
> because I'm still somewhat ambivalent.

As you have previously noted (IIRC), the exclusion of files being 
deleted in the destination can already be handled by breaking up the 
clone operation into a copy followed by a deletion.

To use the example given by "edlight0" where he wants to restore from 
a backup but preserve some selected files, instead of using /CLONE, 
he can use the following 2 step process:

:: Step 1 - copy any changed files from the backup
xxcopy D:\backup\ C:\ /backup/xpagefile.sys/xhiberfil.sys
:: Step 2 - delete any extra files in C:\ if they don't
:: exist in the backup but keep pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys
xxcopy C:\ D:\backup\ /bu/rsy/pd0/xpagefile.sys/xhiberfil.sys

Whilst this is clearly more ungainly than having the exclusions apply 
to both the source and dest, I think there's too much risk of subtle 
changes in behaviour if the existing exclusion mechanism is changed. 
That means that a new class of switches would need to be implemented 
as noted above.

Garry



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.