On Mar 25, 2010, at 4:26 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-03-24 17:08, martin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote:
zmoelnig wrote:
PS:
for what it is worth: i have forked mrpeach/net yesterday, with
the aim
If you're going to do that, I think you should change their names,
otherwise confusion will reign.
the names are just perfect :-)
Perhaps, but they are also taken. I think its bad form to reuse the
name if you plan on maintaining them as separate objects. That's
certainly one topic we've discussed to death back in the day. If its
a dev branch, then no, but that should then be a branch in SVN.
.hc
on the long run, i hope to make them compatible with your original
objects. at the same time i don't mind at all if improvements are
backported.
for now a fork just seemed the best way to allow more rapid
development
without having to think about legacy issues.
for now things look rather promising:
a [tcpserver] that merely reflects incoming data back to a client
(currently a "netcat" instance) over a realy wire took about 1.4min to
reflect 500MB of data, whereas the original objects took about 53.5min
(no manual tuning with buffer sizes in any test)
fmadrs
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone." --Bjarne Stroustrup (creator of C++)
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
