Hi all, Thank you for the discussion, is very interesting for me.
Thanks Adrian, I don't have benchmarks with ImageSegment, so I like to see the numbers, how could I reproduce that benchmarks? it would be useful for me. I think that ImageSegment is the best if fits the needs. Maybe if in a future we implement using primitives some things it could be more comparable. As someones said, Fuel is more similar to Parcels, in fact we started working based on this paper: http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Mira05aParcels.pdf About if "objects are much more times loaded than stored", yes... Fuel is not the universal serialization solution, but I believe it could be useful in some cases. Beside of the speed, I think that is also important the "user experience" part of the purpose ("is worth to spend time while storing in order to have faster loading and user experience"), in the sense of giving more features that makes easier the life of the developer to share their object structures. Maybe Fuel could give more flexibility than ImageSegment to select which objects of the graph store and which not. It could let the user define custom rules. For example if FuelFameExtension is installed, when Fuel stores an object first looks at the Fame metadescription of that object and then only stores the "not derived attributes" of that object. That was necessary to export and import properly Moose models. Martin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/12/9 Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu>: >> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> BTW >>> when giving feedback consider that the guy doing that is spending a lot of >>> time and this will be his master >>> and that the code was not optimize and that there is no dedicated >>> primitive in play. >>> >>> So we will see at the end and I was thinking that our little community >>> would be much more positive but >>> we will continue because we believe that there is some value in that. >> >> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Fuel is not useful. I'm saying that >> improving code loading performance is not that important. >> > > Sort of. > But what is most important, i think that you can exchange objects > between images. > MC really allows you to exchange only with source code, > while with Fuel, i think you could put any object/data into binary > package, and don't bother with > inventing the pervasive ways how to recreate complex (or big) data > structures from array literals :) > > Another interesting aspect of binary format is that you can give > binary to people without > disclosing source code.. (waving to corporate world ;) > >> >> Levente >> >>> >>> Stef >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > >
