I think I should be able to support it without too much work. It looks like to code ditches the formula record but keeps a list of PTGS. (So it's list of a list of a list!) I'm not sure this is going to really save that much space so since it's storing objects anyway so I'll just try and bring back the formula record. I also have some idea's for other memory improvements but first we need to get it fixed.
Regards,
Glen
At 02:09 AM 13/04/2004, you wrote:
I had struggled with this some time ago.
>From http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=poi-dev&m=107523756731419&w=2 "Currently, we add a SharedFormulaRecord to a FormulaRecordAggregate when we see one. However, for HEAD, no record objects other than ValueRecordAggregate are stored, only the underlying data is stored in VRA, and Record's created on demand" and a follow up by Jason.
Also http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=poi-dev&m=107650102810340&w=2
where I had expressed concern about test coverage of VRA :), which you have fixed, so thats great.
Since currently VRA stores underlying data in its own arrays, getting it to store shared formula's seemed like a complete rewrite. Jason has a patch to HEAD that converts Shared formula records to formula records.. its in bugzilla, that seemed to be a much easier way to deal with this problem, tho it'll increase output file size (I resisted doing that patch for 2.0.. i was sure I know how to handle Shared formula's properly, but in 3.0 it seems impossible to do that without rewriting VRA, which are quite the guts of the code ) I had promised to look at it, but hadnt had the time. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26502
Hope this helps.
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 09:33, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
> I'm just looking at TestValueRecordsAggregate to see if I can do anything
> to fix it up.
>
> I'm finding it pretty confusing to follow but I can see a couple of issues
> that are preventing things from working. Firstly it tries to store the
> formula before it's finished constructing it. When it then needs to return
> the formula it appears that it tries to reconstruct it as a new record. No
> attempt is made to handle shared formula records and string records seem to
> get lost.
>
> Anyone else been looking at this? I don't want to duplicate any current work.
>
>
>
>
> Glen Stampoultzis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glen Stampoultzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
