> Hi WanMil,
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 16:28:12 +0100
> > From: [email protected]
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [mkgmap-dev] Merging back the performance branch
> >
> > Hi Gerd,
> >
> > in your opinion what is the current status of the performance branch?
> > There seem to be no more fundamental changes so I would like to focus on
> > merging it back to the trunk. Additional improvements can then be
> > applied to the trunk.
>
> well, r2234 doesn't contain all patches that I've posted. Do you plan to
> add them?
Of course, but I want to have a look on the patches before commiting them.
>
> My latest version contains another big change regarding Tags and
> StyledConverter.
> I'd like to change the Rule evaluation in a way that it will allow to
> skip many rules
> that are now partly evaluated.
> Up to now my changes are saving maybe 5% - 10 %, but I hope to see more.
> I don't think that this will be done soon.
We can merge back the performance branch and continue using it for the
style changes.
>
> I have an idea how splitArea() could be changed to be much faster, but
> no algorithm
> yet. I believe that we don't need any Area.intersect() calculations for
> that, we
> just have to split a few lines.
That's great.
Maybe you can invest your time better in other points of mkgmap with a
greater improvement. Performance improvements are great but there are
some functional problems unsolved, e.g. the Subdivision creation in
mkgmap has some problems which need to be addressed.
>
> >
> > The performance improvements are great. Before merging back I would like
> > to invite people (and give them the chance) to test it carefully. For
> > this I will upload the complete world bounds so that anyone can
> participate.
>
> good. I can't believe that so many changes do not contain any bugs:-)
>
> >
> > From my point of view the following things must be done before merging
> > back:
> > * Remove several System.out printouts. Please use the mkgmap internal
> > logging system.
> > * One note to the logging system: Instead of using
> > log.info("There were "+n+" results")
> > better use
> > log.info("There were", n, "results")
> > This avoids string creation in case the log message is not logged.
>
> okay, I will change that.
>
> > * Please check the code with FindBugs or something similar
>
> okay, I wasn't aware that this tool is for free :-)
>
> > * Is the source code well documented?
>
> hard to say. I tend to comment only those lines that implement
> a tricky solution. Everything else should be self-documenting.
>
> > * Is the licence header added to all classes?
> What would the right one?
I don't know if there is a 'correct' one but I am using the following:
/*
* Copyright (C) 2006, 2012.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or
* version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
* WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
* General Public License for more details.
*/
>
> > * The BoundaryPreparer uses options like "preparer-out-dir". Are these
> > options documented? The name should be more specific (e.g.
> bounds-out-dir).
> okay
>
> Gerd
>
>
> >
> > WanMil
> > _______________________________________________
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
