On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 06:43:10PM +0200, Remko Troncon wrote:
> You mentioned it wasn't well written and inefficient. In what way is
> it inefficient ? It feels a lot lighter than darcs.cgi to me.
> Also, are you planning on continuing active development on the
> interface ? Because i like it, and i'm missing a decent web interface
> for darcs, with dedicated development.
Glad you like it =)
Well, I haven't really tested darcs.cgi myself so I don't really know how
fast it is. The code isn't badly written per-se, but as it is a web
interface, it's not the most beautiful piece of code I've written =)
The inneficient part comes from calling darcs for most operations; but
it's more "slow" than "inneficient". I tried very hard to make as few
calls as possible, and if I remember correctly there's only one call per
run, so it's not that bad. I guess it's pretty much as good as it gets
when using darcs as a backend. However, I don't think it would handle
thousands of requests per second or so, and that's what I meant.
If you do need a darcs web interface that can handle heavy loads, well,
let me know, maybe I can work something out, I have a few ideas.
About the development status, I think it's pretty much done as it is now
(ie. I don't expect to radically change lots of stuff), and I'm here open
for suggestions and bug reports. So I think you can consider it
maintained.
Thanks,
Alberto
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
