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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Why is KSpread such a memory hog - analysis
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-08-31 14:31:29
Message-ID: 200408311631.35892.zander () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 30 August 2004 20:27, \"shaheed r. haque\" wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>:
> > > This sounds a lot like a job for SAX?
> >
> > SAX is much worse to program correctly and with the solution I gave
> > you still have the DOM tree.
>
> I should have been clearer: I meant "one could implement your idea
> using SAX" (the Xerces-C++ implementation, for example). The point
> being that SAX has all the funky support for encodings and whatnot
> that a standalone implementation would inevitably need to recreate.

Indeed; but that does make it an order of magnitude more complex; which 
might not be what you want.

> P.S. Also, it might just be worth deferring the creation of the
> QStrings until really needed?

I don't think that is a good idea memory wise; QStrings share their 
string implicitly which (should) mean less memory allocated for 
repeating element-names.
I have no idea how much bytes a QString brings as overhead.

It surely is faster to keep a char* for as long as possible though..

- -- 
Thomas Zander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNIvHCojCW6H2z/QRAka4AKDRMXqEQKUZjahRbhz10YdXIZGXFwCfSAo3
F6fMeclFAhNHFifIzJxEusQ=
=OesD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]