Shane Hathaway wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Now, what *I*'d like to know is what the bold new idea is, since it
sounds like it's something even newer than the
forward-chained-buckets-plus-conflict-resolution stuff that's already been
released.
snip
So, all things considered, you
Chris Withers wrote:
will you be releasing a new version of BTreeFolder that makes use of the new
funky BTrees at any stage?
We've done some work on it; in fact Jim came up with a bold new idea
that makes them inherently faster. Now to find the time. :-)
Shane
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
will you be releasing a new version of BTreeFolder that makes use of the new
funky BTrees at any stage?
We've done some work on it; in fact Jim came up with a bold new idea
that makes them inherently faster. Now to find the time. :-)
Cool.
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
will you be releasing a new version of BTreeFolder that makes use of the new
funky BTrees at any stage?
We've done some work on it; in fact Jim came up with a bold new idea
that makes them inherently faster. Now to find the time. :-)
Does
At 09:19 AM 4/27/01 -0700, Michael Bernstein wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
will you be releasing a new version of BTreeFolder that makes use of
the new
funky BTrees at any stage?
We've done some work on it; in fact Jim came up with a bold new idea
that makes
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Now, what *I*'d like to know is what the bold new idea is, since it
sounds like it's something even newer than the
forward-chained-buckets-plus-conflict-resolution stuff that's already been
released.
It's simple, really. BTreeFolders play havoc with acquisition because
Shane Hathaway wrote:
However, purely random IDs would cause all the buckets to be loaded in
memory all the time, so Jim's third idea was to have each client
increment sequentially from a random ID and move to a new random ID if
conflicts ever occur.
Can't one just assign some unique id
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
However, purely random IDs would cause all the buckets to be loaded in
memory all the time, so Jim's third idea was to have each client
increment sequentially from a random ID and move to a new random ID if
conflicts ever occur.
Can't
