> In the past there have been discussions on this list about the
> performance cost of keeping dynamic data in a storage heap - since
> setting the value of a variable located in a storage heap chunk
> requires a call to DmWrite. The advantage, of course, is that you
> have a lot more memory available, since the dynamic heap space is
> rather limited.
Has anybody looked at whether the additional code required to call
DmWrite instead of setting dynamic heap variables directly with = eats
up whatever you save by not having two copies around?
I usually declare a semi-large struct to hold all of an application's
state. I declare one instance of the struct as a global, access the
data there, and read/write the struct to the preferences database at
app start/stop time. This means that there are two copies of the data
on the machine. But I bet if I modified the contents of the database
in place using DmWrite the increase in my app's code size would be
greater than the size of the struct I no longer duplicated.
I'd worry about this before the speed/performance issues.
--Eric House
******************************************************************************
* From the desktop of: Eric House, [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Check out Crosswords for PalmOS: <http://www.peak.org/~fixin/xwords> *
* "The instructions said 'Win98 or better' -- so I installed Linux" *
******************************************************************************
