Copy Files with long file names

[David-W-Fenton]

:

Since Windows XP (and I believe Windows 7 too) handles max lenght
of 260 I believe even if we successfully rename and copy any files
with long name the behaviour of the copied file can be
unpredictable.

If things are consistent with the past, the 260 limit is on the full
path and filename, not just the filename itself. That would mean
that a 100-character path could not have files with names over 160
in length and still be accessible.

I wonder, though, if that could be gotten round with the File System
Object by loading the list of files into a collection or array. Or,
if the FSO has a collection where you could access the files by
index and then check the name without the path.

Likely not, since to do anything from there the FSO would still have
to use the full path/name, but it's worth a shot.

 

[Benny Andersen]

I'm pretty certain the Folder Options settings are per user. At a

guess, this information is somewhere in the registry, so you should be
able to control it from code (policy, maybe?). As to individual folders,
the View tab of the Folder Options dialog (Tools | Folder Options from
explorer, also available in Control Panel) has a button to apply the
current view settings to every folder.

if my knowledge isn't obsolete, it is saved in seperate streams - a
rare known NTFS feature. When copied to a fat device the properties is
lost. Some file properties, like exif data to jpg is file content.

 

[James A. Fortune]

OIC. Well they've still overstepped. IMO they need to see if there's a way
to abbreviate at least part(s) of the name while leaving it still
recognisable. After all, as Salad says, it can hardly be 'glanced' as it
stands.

IC2. IMO, the OS file system names are a poor choice as a database
container, even if WinFS pops up someday with some nice OS database
features. It seems that your customer has taken the concept to its
illogical extreme. Many years ago I had a customer that really wanted
data with "clever" enhancements that would enable him to categorize
the data by sight - obviously something to avoid putting into the
actual data from a database perspective. Yet such idiosyncrasies are
typical of the situations asked for by customers. Ideally, you want
to accommodate the customer's desires without resorting to
questionable database practices. I.e., some ingenuity is in order to
accomplish both. I think your customer has passed the point where
satisfying both goals is possible. From my experience, even when
satisfying both goals is possible, using the OS file names as a pseudo
database leads to inefficiencies that increase dramatically over time.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Stuart McCall]

OIC. Well they've still overstepped. IMO they need to see if there's a way
to abbreviate at least part(s) of the name while leaving it still
recognisable. After all, as Salad says, it can hardly be 'glanced' as it
stands.

IC2. IMO, the OS file system names are a poor choice as a database
container, even if WinFS pops up someday with some nice OS database
features. It seems that your customer has taken the concept to its
illogical extreme. Many years ago I had a customer that really wanted
data with "clever" enhancements that would enable him to categorize
the data by sight - obviously something to avoid putting into the
actual data from a database perspective. Yet such idiosyncrasies are
typical of the situations asked for by customers. Ideally, you want
to accommodate the customer's desires without resorting to
questionable database practices. I.e., some ingenuity is in order to
accomplish both. I think your customer has passed the point where
satisfying both goals is possible. From my experience, even when
satisfying both goals is possible, using the OS file names as a pseudo
database leads to inefficiencies that increase dramatically over time.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

I know you're not addressing me, but I'd like to say: Well Put.