On Mon, 06 Sep 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > > All in all I'm more or less happy with Konqueror - it is fairly stable
> > > for file management, and it can finally sort files :-)))
> > 
> > Well, the main problem I see is the lack of speed. Most people find kfm
> > too slow. But Konqueror is currently under the same setup 2-3x slower
> > than kfm. In my opinion the current situation is absolutely
> > unaccepable.
> > 
> > I currently don't understand much about KOM/OP/MICO, so I don't know
> > where's the problem. But anything that will improve performance should
> > have high priority.
> 
> I agree that Konqueror tends to lack performance, however I don't think
> that this is only CORBA's fault.
> 
> I guess that one of the reasons for the lack of speed is the extremly
> flexible io sub-system we use. There are lots of layers between listing a
> directory or getting a file and the actual response in the GUI.

First correctness than performance. 

Currently it seems to work correct so it's time to look at performance. Don't
do anything hasty. Identify the actions which are slow. Then do measurements
to see _where_ the time is spent. Think about smart ways to reduce these
times without sacrificing the design too much. 

Note that memory usage also influences performace. So you should also have
a look at the memory requirements of the various components. If something
needs 1 Mb or more it's worth to try to make it more efficient memory-wise.

Having lots of layers does not automatically mean it has to be slow. But if
loading a directory means all these layers have to be passed once for each 
file it will be slow. Or if the data is copied at each layer.... Or if additional memory
needs to be allocated for each additional file found in a directory....

But you only know _what_ is the _real_ problem once you have measured it.

Cheers,
Waldo
--
BTW, You still have a reply-to set.