Re: [Evolution-hackers] Future of eds bindings

[Patrick Ohly <Patrick Ohly gmx de>]

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
--  
Patrick Ohly gmx de
http://www.estamos.de/