John, See the reference below to DBUS sessions. Doesn't DBUS have the ability to inform any client about connects and disconnects of other clients to the bus?
Cheers, Waldo Intel Corporation - Channel Platform Solutions Group - Hillsboro, Oregon >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdg- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie McCracken >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:12 AM >To: Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: simple search api (was Re: mimetype standardisation by >testsets) > >Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > >> >> Question 1 : Will it benefit the search engine to have a Session object >> for each connection? Then Query objects are spawned by a call like >> Magnus suggest; Query = NewQuery(Session, query_string)? Is it correct >> that applications doesn't need to care about sessions - just gimme the >> goddam query! ? :-) > >In Dbus , there are no specific sessions exposed as such so Im not sure >a "session" makes sense unless you are using P2P mode. > >We do need to close a live query to free up resources on the server but >theres no way to automate that as AFAIK the server does not receive >client disconnect signals - the shared bus is the connection and thats >never released. > >> >> Question 2 : Should the results be returned with the HitsAdded signal? >> The Query object then has a Query.GetResults method to retrieve the >> results. This is closer to libbeagle and spotlight and the application >> only spends time retrieving hits when it really wants to. It does >> introduce some extra method calls though... >> > >Dunno. It depends on the extra traffic it generates - individual dbus >calls may have an overhead of a ms or two so they could add up when >returning large result sets (IE 1000 hits could cost you 1 or 2 seconds >in socket latency alone). I think sending one hit per signal is probably >out of the question. > >If we batched up the results in packets of 10 or 20 (or some config >setting) then it might be okay to do that. > >I would have to experiment with tracker to find the optimal packet size >so maybe the packet size should be search engine specific. > > >-- >Mr Jamie McCracken >http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ > >_______________________________________________ >xdg mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
