Re: [Tracker] more issues with indexer-split

[Jamie McCracken <jamie mccrack googlemail com>]

On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 12:23 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > Could we also reduce memory usage by not statically linking to the
> > private libs libtracker-common and libtracker-db?
>
> Those libraries should not be available for public use. Before doing so,
> each API would have to be:
>
> a) Documented
> b) Checked it needs to be public
> c) Versioned
> d) ...
>
> This is a lot of work and I don't think it is worth it.
> I haven't looked at the footprints myself though.


why we would do all that?

we would not be exporting the headers for those libs so no other apps
outside of tracker source tree will be able to use it effectively

surely there are some examples of private libs that are not statically
linked?

> > currently my FTS module and the file-indexer-module are ~ 1MB in size
> > due mostly to linking with them and im sure the size of trackerd and
> > tracker-indexer could be made smaller too with only one instance of
> > those libs in memory
>
> How does the memory footprint compare to the old tracker?

resident memory is a lot steeper and thats even before its started
indexing