Sadahiro Tomoyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:44:00 +0100
> Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Using the multi-lingual server scenario I was initially discussing, would
>> one of the following usages be correct (yes, it's just pseudocode and
>> exists in a world where no errors ever occur!):
>
> Though I have not worked with any multitasking application,
> I suppose a possible snag is the size of DUCET (the file named
> allkeys.txt) which should cause slowness of construction of
> a collator and large memory use for storage.
Yes, the size of allkeys.txt is an issue - I did a Data dump of a
Unicode::Collate instance and it's pretty big!
>> 1)
>>
>> my %collators;
>>
>> for ( $server_loop )
>> {
>> my $lang_tag = Server->requested_lang_tag;
>>
>> my $collator = $collators{$lang_tag}
>> ||= Unicode::Collate::Locale->new(locale => $lang_tag);
>>
>> ...
>> }
>
> 1) creates a new collator if $lang_tag value is new.
> Say when the old one was 'en' (English) and the new one was 'it'
> (Italian), Unicode::Collate::Locale->new will return a default collator
> each time. I.e. $collators{en} and $collators{it} work as same but memory
> is not shared.
Good point!
> When Unicode::Collate->new is called, all the data generated by parsing
> of a table file are stored in a collator which is a blessed hash.
> The reason why so is, as I thinked, if (a part of) data newly created
> are stored in other places, say, in a cache at the package namespace
> (e.g. something like %Unicode::Collate::Cache), it might cause some
> problem on handling memory in the cache by users outside the package.
>
> I think parhaps it should be necessary that a user can determine
> whether two (or more) $lang_tag values create the same collator or not.
>
> my $lang_tag = Server->requested_lang_tag;
> my $canonical = Unicode::Collate::Locale::canonical_name($lang_tag);
>
> # if $canonical is same as an old one, the collator for it should be
> # same. After seeing if $canonical is new, a collator can be created.
> # The function name leaves room for reconsideration.
Yes, makes sense, but I'm starting to wonder if Unicode::Collate is too
heavyweight a solution. Perhaps something based around Sort::ArbBiLex might
produce good enough results for most languages.
Thanks for the reply
--
Rich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
