----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105255/#review14761 -----------------------------------------------------------
I think this is correct. But I cannot remember exactly why I introduced the thread in the first place. So I am not entirely sure. But if you tested everything including automatic query updates then this should be fine. Actually I suppose we could improve the performance even more by not using the query service... - Sebastian Trueg On June 14, 2012, 11:28 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105255/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 14, 2012, 11:28 p.m.) > > > Review request for Nepomuk and Sebastian Trueg. > > > Description > ------- > > The extra QThread isn't really required and complicates the code, and also > adds an unnecessary overhead. > > > Diffs > ----- > > nepomuk/kioslaves/search/kio_nepomuksearch.h e68ff29 > nepomuk/kioslaves/search/kio_nepomuksearch.cpp 38894be > nepomuk/kioslaves/search/searchfolder.h c0839b5 > nepomuk/kioslaves/search/searchfolder.cpp 8088c46 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105255/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Works exactly the same as before. > > > Thanks, > > Vishesh Handa > >
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
