Jamie, 1) From the diagram, seems QBDM still used, is that right? 2) I do not see you mention about Xsam, IIRC, you said it will be incluced in 0.7.
Thanks, Halton. On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 11:24 -0500, Jamie McCracken wrote: > thanks thats very nice > > Its very close to what I had in mind > > A few changes/omissions: > > 1) instead of tracker-index shared lib, only the parser would be shared > (because trackerd would need to parse and stem search terms). the search > api would not need to be shared nor would any other indexing stuff. > > 2) trackerd's access to db/index would primarily be read only with > exception of ontology updates. for safe NFS use we must avoid separate > processes writing to same db at same time. so for storing metadata we > would need to pause (via dbus) tracker-file-indexer if its indexing and > writing to metadata db (for performance reasons we could include option > not to do this and rely on file locking) > > 3) A User DB which is used for storing user defined metadata + services > (tags + any services stored directly in tracker as their primary store > like bookmarks and other stuff which is not stored elsewhere on disk) > > 4) ontology would be part of the metadata store. Both processes would > need access to this and virtually no metadata operation could be > completed without onto so does not make sense to separate them. As in > (3) above metadata store would encompass the user metadata db as well as > the indexed metadata db > > 5) Shared config libs - not just for tracker but for > tracker-preferences/tracker-applet as well > > > to sum up on shared libs i think the following is needed: > > * libtracker-metadata (read/write/search metadata) > * libtracker-parser > * libtracker-config > * libtracker-common (shared utility functions) > > > For the indexer if we have several processes > (file-indexer/email-indexer/application-indexer etc) then a lot of index > stuff would need to be shared. Im still not certain if to go this way or > just have one index process as emails will have file attachments so its > not clear cut at the moment > > anyway forwarding to tracker-list for comment > > jamie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Ivan Frade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Plans for 0.7 > Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:44:22 +0200 > > Hi Jamie, > > I prepared a small diagram to clarify the intended architecture for > tracker 0.7. I think that a diagram like this can be very useful to > understand all required refactorings. > > It represents (what i understood about) your ideas of two different > processes, with my own ideas about how to split the code in clean > modules. The xesam stuff is not included, but maybe we can use the > diagram to clarify how to integrate it. > > Could you please take a look at the diagram? If you think it is a good > enough approximation we can discuss the details on the mailing list. Of > course all questions and comments are welcome. > > > Thank you, > > Ivan > > P.D. I attach the diagram in JPEG and .dia > > _______________________________________________ > tracker-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
