Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-06 Thread Ivan Čukić
more libraries means harder to use (have to know the more about the design to know which library to use and when). i think a dep on nepomuk is just fine as long as nepomuk's depencies are limited .. if they aren't, then it can be an issue. The reason why I disagree are the apps that just

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-05 Thread Ivan Čukić
Without the blocking. the hell would break loose - it wouldn't be backwards compatible and every kactivities client would need to be patched. according to lxr, that is: * plasma-desktop shell * activities DataEngine * activities Runner * powerdevil * plasma-mobile shell * active

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-05 Thread Ivan Čukić
We need data models for it sounds good ... Now, since the models library (in order to skip data retrieval from kamd via d-bus*) will need to be linked to nepomuk (linked resources) and qtsql (for detailed even logs), what do you think to make it a separate library -

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-05 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 21:54:33 Ivan Čukić wrote: We need data models for it sounds good ... Now, since the models library (in order to skip data retrieval from kamd via d-bus*) will need to be linked to nepomuk (linked resources) and qtsql (for detailed even logs), what do

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-04 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Monday, September 3, 2012 09:26:27 Ivan Čukić wrote: What do you think of the idea to go one step further, and instead of accessing the data via d-bus, to only use d-bus for signalling the changes, but to use QSharedMemory for actual data access (read-only from the library). sounds a lot

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-04 Thread Ivan Čukić
sounds a lot less maintainable and in the long run less re-usable. i also I agree, after some investigation, shared memory is a bit tedious to work with. wonder if using shared memory wouldn't simply move, rather than remove, lock contention for data population, etc. There /would/ be less

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-04 Thread Marco Martin
On Tuesday 04 September 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote: attempts to provide synchronous access. perhaps it would be better to just drop the pretense of synchronicity in the API? I don't like the idea of having a simple requests like activity list or info with async api. This would be quite

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-04 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:28:22 Ivan Čukić wrote: I don't like the idea of having a simple requests like activity list or info with async api. This would be quite imitating for simple clients like loopless kio_activities, or file item plugin. It would be nicer to have something like

Re: KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-04 Thread Ivan Čukić
one thing i'm not a fan of with the new Consumer approach is that it is impossible to know whether the code will block or not. it does a pre-fetch and then cleverly blocks only if it hasn't received a reply yet. which means there is no way to guarantee async behaviour when desired. as long as

KActivities library optimizations

2012-09-03 Thread Ivan Čukić
Hi, The latest master of libkactivities caches and pre-fetches some stuff like the currentActivity, list of activities, list of running activities, activity names and icons, to minimise the amount of d-bus related locks*. What do you think of the idea to go one step further, and instead of