Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Re: Syncing the RhythmDB on every update

On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:22, Andreas Bombe wrote:

> Trying to design an SQLite backend into it, I'd say that would be nice
> simply for the reason that it would be the right thing to do.  As it is
> currently, expensive database operations are moved out of the main
> thread into their own threads.


> This poses a difficulty for SQLite as the handles can't be be used in
> multiple threads at once, each thread needs its own handle. 

If we were switching to SQLite, the way I envison things is that we make
more of an explicit cache layer in the abstract RhythmDB class.  So
there'd be:

struct RhythmDBEntry
  GAtomic refcount;
  char *genre;
  char *artist;
  char *title;
  int rating;

This would be exposed to the rest of the code directly, so no more
rhythmdb_entry_get_string (db, ...).

Then the different backends would produce a result set of these.  Then
there would be no threading issues, since the RhythmDBEntries would only
be read in the main thread.

We could still use SQLite in a separate thread then too.

>  Some
> complications arise from that.  The real problem is the design, what
> should have been done is to move the whole GUI out into its own thread
> rather than selectively moving many work related functions out, which is
> a lot less clean.

The GUI is in its own thread - the main one.

> Implementing proper signal handling would be much easier, too. ;-)

I don't think switching threads around will help much with that.

This is a digitally signed message part

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