On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tsantilas Christos
chtsa...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Hi all,
I believe that the DC design is better than Universal Buffer because of
many reasons. My sense is that the Universal Buffer will be very complex and
will not have the desired results, because the
Kinkie wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tsantilas Christos
chtsa...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Hi all,
I believe that the DC design is better than Universal Buffer because of
many reasons. My sense is that the Universal Buffer will be very complex and
will not have the desired
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Alex Rousskov
rouss...@measurement-factory.com wrote:
Hello,
Kinkie has finished another round of his String NG project. The code
is available at https://code.launchpad.net/~kinkie/squid/stringng
During code review and subsequent IRC discussion archived at
2009/1/21 Kinkie gkin...@gmail.com:
What I fear from the DC approach is that we'll end up with lots of
duplicate code between the 'buffer' classes, to gain a tiny little bit
of efficiency and semantic clarity. If that approach has to be taken,
then I'd rather take the variant of the note - in
Hi all,
I believe that the DC design is better than Universal Buffer because
of many reasons. My sense is that the Universal Buffer will be very
complex and will not have the desired results, because the real problems
exist in other subsystems (eg parsers).
But if choosing the DC design
Hello,
Kinkie has finished another round of his String NG project. The code
is available at https://code.launchpad.net/~kinkie/squid/stringng
During code review and subsequent IRC discussion archived at
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MeetUps/IrcMeetup-2009-01-17 it became
apparent that the
2009/1/20 Alex Rousskov rouss...@measurement-factory.com:
Please voice your opinion: which design would be best for Squid 3.2 and
the foreseeable future.
[snip]
I'm about 2/3rds of the way along the actual implementation path of
this in Cacheboy so I can provide an opinion based on increasing
