Re: [evolution-patches] New implementation of EMsgPort

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 07:19 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 09:59 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: 
> > This implementation has been merged with the camel-lite which is going
> > to be used by tinymail. This adds another tester for your patch.
> Excellent!  Let me also direct your attention to bug #359979, which
> aims to simplify the EMsgPort implementation even further.

All this stuff is very interesting Matthew. Kinda looks a lot like what
I had in mind myself in terms of changes that I'm planning to make
sooner or later.

I will try to merge as much as possible with the version that I will
link tinymail with.

I'm at this moment negotiating with some people how the Camel will be
done (packaged and/or shipped) in tinymail. It will most certainly use a
Camel with a lot changes that likely aren't going to be available in
upstream Camel when I will do my release.

I'm for example definitely planning to use the mmap patches that I did a
few weeks ago (about the folder-summaries in Camel): 
Intense measurements (by creating small kernel modules, I know that mmap
isn't easy to correctly measure) have shown me that they do make a very
significant difference in memory usage.

I'm interested in changes like yours. Not because I want to make things
more unstable (less tested) for tinymail ;), but because I believe some
inner core parts of Camel have design problems and others are
replaceable with excellent existing implementations in glib (like
EMsgPort <-> GAsyncQueue, EMutex <-> GMutex, GThread <->  EThread and
finally of course CamelObject <-> GObject).

Feel free to keep me updated by adding me to the CC of new such bug
items or post about it on this mailing list.

Philip Van Hoof, software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: vanhoof at x-tend dot be

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]