On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com> wrote: >> My cl-launch scripts can take one second. >> >> I can trim a half second off that with a disk-cache[2] of *source-registry*. >> > I'm jealous. Your machine is almost 25% faster than mine.
weird, it’s nothing special. I bought something I could hold it open with one hand while hitting staff with the other. http://j.mp/1lfhMwY >> [2] A proof of concept disk cache... >> >> https://gist.github.com/bhyde/526c5acb38f341d60dba >> > The cache should ideally be per source-registry entry; > and managed by the same entity that manages said entry. > Thus, I was thinking of an optional second form > in cl-source-registry.conf file. > Or a separate .cl-source-registry.cache file. I saw that. i’m ambivalent about the complexity. >> So, anytime somebody rearranges the set of asdf systems they >> are expected to invoke reset-quickasdf. >> > >> quickasdf horrible name - but it bemused me at the time. >> > Ouch. I love achieving my goals. > Calling initialize-source-registry directly from the repl takes >> 0.47 seconds without the diskcache and .004 seconds with it. >> > Yes, that's the general thing I'm thinking about: > kind of back to the concept of link farms Any insta-theories for where other half second comes from? - ben "Since English is a mess, it maps well onto the problem space, which is also a mess, which we call reality.” - Larry Wall _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
