I was not exactly referring to startup code, but to runtime code and how
many times these options appear. If you triple that time and multiply by how
many times X how many points X messages/day these options might be invoked
it could add up even if it is just an "if" statement. Add to that
maintenance cost, larger code, more maintenance. I prefer to be spartan
about it.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [REQ] generic config struct for parameter value lists
AFAIK this was not implemented so far.
Regarding performance, if the options are converted into regular
configuration parameters (Kannel has very well defined configuration
structures that wouldn't change at all I think) the impact would be
negligible (probably just a few milliseconds during startup).
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
El 08/12/2008, a las 07:40 a.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Still now has only 1 option to check (in memory). If you triple the
options then you will have 3 times as many checks x number they appear in
code. In general "option explosion" is to be avoided, unless necessary.
Makes for more complex configuration and degraded performance.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ehizogie Binitie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re:[REQ] generic config struct for parameter value lists
I don't imagine performance will be significan'tly affected since these
parameters are initialized on startup and loaded into memory.
Ehi
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 23:32 +0200, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
When was it proposed? How is it going to affect performance?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ehizogie Binitie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 9:07 PM
Subject: Re:[REQ] generic config struct for parameter value lists
Hi List,
Was this feature proposed by Stipe ever implemented ?
I think its an excellent idea.
Ehi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi list,
I have some good input on extending Kannel's config handling abilities:
Currently we have several needs for a config value list, some examples:
group = smsc
...
accepted-smsc-id = "A;B;C"
group = sms-service
...
aliases = "key2;key3;key4"
group = smsbox-route
...
shortcode = "1111;2222;3333"
so, all of these are either of type word-list or id-list, semantically
it's a
semicolon seperated list. For some parts we have defined foobar- regex
config
directives to handle PCRE/regex for a more simple definition.
The idea now is to create a more generic construct for this, which
handles 3
(maybe more?) different ways for any "list-type":
foobar = "A;B;C"
foobar-url = "http://somewhere/foobar-list";
foobar-regex = "<the regex expression>"
so users can *CHOOSE* which way they prefer. And we handle the
processing of the
list "transparently" to the logic that requires the list from the
config
sections.
I like this concept of abstraction here. Since we would encapsulate the
plain,
-url and -regex handling to the scope of gwlib/cfg.{ch] and the other
calling
modules simply pull for the list.
Thoughts?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 D�sseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ehizogie Binitie
Director, Product Management and Marketing
Rancard Solutions Ltd
TOP SOFTWARE COMPANY OF THE YEAR (Ghana)
Web: www.rancardmobility.com
mobile: +233 244 980 569
office: +233 28 952 9573
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
