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

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Sven Neumann <s neumann raumfeld com> wrote:
>> > 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.

  Indeed I did misunderstand. Yeah, thats true.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124