Re: [PATCH] Add a basic date format check to DIDL-Lite parser

[Sven Neumann <s neumann raumfeld com>]

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 13:11 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Sven Neumann <s neumann raumfeld com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 01:23 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >>   However, I wonder if those percentages map to real scenarios. Any
> >> decent client will never parse that many DIDLs in a short amount of
> >> time. i-e it will only browse objects that are actually needed and
> >> even then, it will use the right filter to get only the properties
> >> that it needs. Usually that translates to what is visible to user at a
> >> particular time and neighbouring objects. Right?
> >
> > Well, we are not looking at absolute numbers here. The relative numbers
> > given by Jens should be more or less representative for a real-world
> > usage scenario. It doesn't really matter if the client parses one DIDL
> > object or thousands.
> 
>   IMHO It does. If you browse 1000 objects at a time and use a filter
> of '*', there will be two issues:
> 
> 1. User will most probably have to wait for a few seconds to be able
> to see the results. i-e bad user experience.
> 2. You will chew a lot more of the CPU (and memory too) than you
> really need. That would be a disaster for embedded systems.

You misunderstood me. It doesn't matter for the relative distribution of
CPU cycles. The test that Jens has done measured a lot more objects than
one would parse in real-time scenarios. Still the result gives us some
insights on real-world scenarios. Even if the client parses only a
single DIDL-Lite at a time, the CPU cycles will be similarily
distributed.


Sven