On 10.04.2015, at 19:49, Nick Hill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Accessing the CAS from multiple threads is not something that anyone would 
> need to do if they did not want/need to! In fact, the fact that pooling CASes 
> is no longer needed should make things generally much simpler for users. I.e. 
> not having to worry about when to release a CAS or accessing/corrupting a CAS 
> which had previously been 'released'.
> Additionally, users can get themselves into much more trouble with the CAS 
> heaps and LL API, so that reasoning would also support deprecation/removal of 
> those?

For the record, what multi-threading scenarios are we talking about? Concurrent 
reading or concurrent modifications? If concurrent modifications, what kind of 
concurrent modifications should be supported (e.g. adding, deletion, changing 
existing feature values)?

>> Form 4 & 6 compressed binary CAS serialization saves about 10x space over
>> zip-compressed XmiCAS format. Serialization time is also 2-3x faster.
>> Reducing per/experiment storage requirements from 100's of GB to 10's of GB
>> was essential for much of our work. The fact that form 6, like XmiCas,
>> supports deserialization into a CAS with a different but "compatible" type
>> system was also essential.
> 
> I'm not questioning the need for time/space efficient serialization or the 
> typesystem compatibility and FS-id-preservation requirements. I'm sure these 
> could be addressed without too much effort with the object-based impl. I also 
> think it's important that the existing formats can still be used, but I don't 
> think these two things necessarily need to be satisfied jointly?

Currently we have a reasonably fast binary serialization that supports 
FS-id-preservation (CasCompleteSerializer). It would be good to continue having 
such a thing.

I don't know if any of the other binary serializations also provides the FS-ids.

Currently FS-id-preservation and lenient-loading are not supported at the same 
time. So no problem if those two features are not supported simultaneously.

Cheers,

-- Richard

Reply via email to