Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 19:30 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 20:18 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: Do you plan to do that before replacing Bonobo in the mainline Evolution? Yes, finding out why getchanges() is so damn slow is on the list of things to do. I'm afraid speeding up the underlying C implementation in the file back end will only delay the inevitable: as the number of contacts grows, there'll always be a point when the time out strikes too early. It's simply not possible to squeeze an O(n) (or worse) implementation into a fixed amount of time in all cases :-/ Now in this case perhaps the implementation can be sped up so much that it doesn't matter. But in some other cases (backends which communicate with remote servers?) it will remain a problem. IMHO the underlying problem is that Bonobo/ORBit/CORBA allow calls which run for an unlimited amount of time whereas DBus doesn't. Therefore a simple mapping of CORBA calls to synchronous DBus calls will always be problematic. Do you think that mapping all synchronous libebook/libecal calls to asynchronous communication via DBus would be possible? -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.estamos.de/ ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 20:18 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: Do you plan to do that before replacing Bonobo in the mainline Evolution? Yes, finding out why getchanges() is so damn slow is on the list of things to do. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:59 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be wrong, but that is actually a port of EDS to use dbus, e.g. the user of the evolution data server, be it eds-dbus uses the same C API as eds-orbit. I'm actually talking more about doing a DBUS interface to the client C api, without actually touching eds. A python wrapper around a DBus service which wraps a C library which connects to a Bonobo service doesn't really sound like we're moving in the right direction here. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings
Am Freitag, den 15.08.2008, 11:17 +0100 schrieb Ross Burton: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:09 +0200, Muelli wrote: a DBUS interface to the e-d-s That has already been done: http://labs.o-hand.com/embedded-eds/ It's actually faster than EDS-ORBit. Do we have stats, and also tests with addressbooks with, say, 300,000 entries? Two questions not necessarily aimed at Ross, and I remember asking this two years ago already: What's blocking/missing to get eds-dbus into 2.26? Can we agree on some plan to commit this into gnome's eds (if there's objections, then having optional support by some configure option) early in the next release cycle? The impression of standstill annoys me. andre -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:40 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: Am Freitag, den 15.08.2008, 11:17 +0100 schrieb Ross Burton: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:09 +0200, Muelli wrote: a DBUS interface to the e-d-s That has already been done: http://labs.o-hand.com/embedded-eds/ It's actually faster than EDS-ORBit. Do we have stats, and also tests with addressbooks with, say, 300,000 entries? Benchmarks with 3000 contacts, yes, and it's faster in them all. The only address books with 300,000 entries are remote ones (LDAP, Exchange, etc) and you can only search those, so then you're back down to effectively 100 contacts. Two questions not necessarily aimed at Ross, and I remember asking this two years ago already: What's blocking/missing to get eds-dbus into 2.26? More testing of the calendar port, porting of more backends (generally a minute or so of work), and actually doing the merge. Can we agree on some plan to commit this into gnome's eds (if there's objections, then having optional support by some configure option) early in the next release cycle? Rob Bradford and myself spoke about this at GUADEC. Our basic plan to propose to the Evolution community was to branch trunk in GNOME svn, and merge the DBus port into it *replacing* Bonobo, instead of the current approach of making DBus vs Bonobo a configure time option (which makes several things more complicated). The goal was to do this in time for GNOME 3.0. The impression of standstill annoys me. And you are not the person who has been responsible for maintaining the fork for three years. :) Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
