On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Stanislav Muhametsin <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Rickard Öberg <[email protected]>: > >>> I don't see much more (performance) overhead in >>> saying qName.name() than qName.toString() when storing entity to >>> database. >> >> I tried exporting our database to JSON, and then compared one typical >> object before and after QNames. Without: 1240 chars, With: 2920. So more >> than double with QNames. I would say that's quite significant. >> > > That's a storage issue. These days, storage size is never really an issue. > What do you think about the configuration proposal then?
I think it has some bearing, especially since I suspect that it would aid in role mix-n-match where teams are not as coherent as Rickard's. This could be done, for instance, by a setting per Entity (ES I think won't work out) settable by metaInfo() in assembly would go quite a long way, where the default value is 'current behavior'. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
