[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: KMMsgDict slowness
From:       Michael =?iso-8859-1?q?H=E4ckel?= <haeckel () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-01-03 18:55:34
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 04 January 2002 01:47, Ronen Tzur wrote:
>
> Alright, that seem logical.   But I would have preferred to put this to
> test.

Well, if you don't believe that and want to prove the opposite by testing, I 
don't hinder you.

> Without big problem is not so definate.  And, also in response your
> following paragraph, "if it works why break it."
>
> Changing the way it works today, without a good enough reason, is
> also a possible error source.   However, I know what we're really arguing
> about here, is if the reason is actually good enough.

Something in any case needs a change, either the dictionary or that code.

> Not really.  If the reverse dictionary holds the serial number itself,
> or if it keeps a pointer to an object in the main dictionary (which
> contains the serial number), what's the difference?

If the objects in the main dictionary really contain the serial nubmers, then 
it indeed doesn't need more memory than before. However for what is the 
serial number stored at all in the main dictionary? Is this only forced by 
QDict?

> And on that note, QDict is kinda simple, but wastes memory because
> it is too generic.  If instead of using it, the message dictionary
> implements its own hash table (which would work similiar to QDict),
> then it can have all of the functionality described earlier, with even
> less memory requirements than today.

Feel free to improve that.

Regards,
Michael Häckel


_______________________________________________
kmail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]