I got to wondering how expensive it really is to used named selections everywhere and then move them to the current selection to do some work on them and then back again. It turns out that it is really fast if you use CUT NAMED SELECTION and USE NAMED SELECTION to move it back and forth and it doesn’t seem to matter how many records are in the named selection. I suspect that when using these two commands, internally 4D just updates a pointer or something like that.
To test I created selections of varying sizes and then moved them into a named selection and then back into the current selection thousands of times. Each cycle averaged 3-8 microseconds (not milliseconds)! Maybe there are other gotchas I’m not thinking of, but based on these tests it seems like it would be possible to have all an application’s windows in the main process as long as they all used named selections and just moved them temporarily into the current selection to work on it before moving it back into the named selection. -- Cannon Smith Synergy Farm Solutions Inc. Hill Spring, AB Canada 403-626-3236 <[email protected]> <www.synergyfarmsolutions.com> > On Sep 5, 2016, at 3:53 PM, Cannon Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > - In my current code, I tend to let almost every window have its own process. > One reason for this is that the window has full control over selections and > current records in every table. Even when the widows are array and variable > based, this is very helpful. It seems like things could get very complicated > if you had several windows open in the same process. For example, what if two > of the windows were list windows for the same table and a third table was > editing a record in that table? I suppose I could use named selections, but > they seem limited. For example, I don't know how to programmatically ask a > named selection to sort itself a certain way without making it the current > selection and then pushing the current selection back into the named > selection. Is this an expensive operation? I don't know as I've not tested > it. Intuitively it seems like it would be. It is certainly expensive code > wise in the sense that I'd have to remember to never accidentally use the > current selection except to do temporary work for a named selection. ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
