29 Jan
2010
29 Jan
'10
10:54 a.m.
okaaay, wrong reply-to, retweet....
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 28 janvier 2010 23:45:50 HNEC
To: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Building package cache
On 26 janv. 2010, at 22:03, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
On 26 janv. 2010, at 21:07, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
After playing a bit with the idea tonight, now I remember why I choose the global cache
solution. So I explain how it works in the current system:
To build the system cache, I go over all classes and all class extensions of PackageInfos
and register their most specific package.
Since I go over the whole system, I assume I know all class extensions in all classes.
Now when I ask the package for a method, there are two cases:
- either I can find it in the cache of class extensions and I return its package
- either I can't find it, so I assume it is a normal method and retrieve the package
of its class (from the cache).
Now in an incremental cache system, I can cache a class when I import it, I can even
cache a package so that its class extensions are imported, as above. The big problem is
then that I can't assume that I know all class extensions within the class, because
other packages (which I don't necessarily import) may do some. To do that, I should
ask all methods within each imported class for its most specific package. This was more or
less the situation we had before the cache, which brought the system to its knees on large
projects. Perhaps I will try tomorrow but I don't have high hope. We need something
better than that.
--
Simon
I do not have a solution, but this is really
annoying. In addition to the time taken by loading Moose, it makes 10 minutes just to
check what are are dependencies Mondrian has.
Well, temporary solutions sometimes become less than temporary... I fear this is the
case.
Maybe we can do something with an incremental, on-demand cache: whenever a class or
method is imported, we check whether the cache has been built for it - if not, we built
it. 
31 Jan
31 Jan
6:22 p.m.
ok, I see. Have you considered extending the class PackageInfo with
these caches instead?
Probably what would be tricky, is when to reset these caches. These
could be done using the system change notification I imagine.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 29 Jan 2010, at 06:54, Simon Denier wrote:
okaaay, wrong reply-to, retweet....
Begin forwarded message:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 28 janvier 2010 23:45:50 HNEC
To: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Building package cache
On 26 janv. 2010, at 22:03, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 26 janv. 2010, at 21:07, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
After playing a bit with the idea tonight, now I remember why I
choose the global cache solution. So I explain how it works in the
current system:
To build the system cache, I go over all classes and all class
extensions of PackageInfos and register their most specific package.
Since I go over the whole system, I assume I know all class
extensions in all classes.
Now when I ask the package for a method, there are two cases:
- either I can find it in the cache of class extensions and I
return its package
- either I can't find it, so I assume it is a normal method and
retrieve the package of its class (from the cache).
Now in an incremental cache system, I can cache a class when I
import it, I can even cache a package so that its class extensions
are imported, as above. The big problem is then that I can't assume
that I know all class extensions within the class, because other
packages (which I don't necessarily import) may do some. To do
that, I should ask all methods within each imported class for its
most specific package. This was more or less the situation we had
before the cache, which brought the system to its knees on large
projects. Perhaps I will try tomorrow but I don't have high hope.
We need something better than that.
--
Simon
I do not have a solution, but this is really
annoying. In
addition to the time taken by loading Moose, it makes 10 minutes
just to check what are are dependencies Mondrian has.
Well, temporary solutions sometimes become less than temporary...
I fear this is the case.
Maybe we can do something with an incremental, on-demand cache:
whenever a class or method is imported, we check whether the cache
has been built for it - if not, we built it.
1 Feb
1 Feb
10:57 a.m.
On 31 janv. 2010, at 18:22, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
ok, I see. Have you considered extending the class
PackageInfo with these caches instead?
Nope, because I didn't want to dive into this notorious mess :)
Obviously, the solution is to push the ongoing work on packages.
Probably what would be tricky, is when to reset these
caches. These could be done using the system change notification I imagine.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 29 Jan 2010, at 06:54, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
okaaay, wrong reply-to, retweet....
Begin forwarded message:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 28 janvier 2010 23:45:50 HNEC
To: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Building package cache
On 26 janv. 2010, at 22:03, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 26 janv. 2010, at 21:07, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> I do not have a solution, but this is really annoying. In addition to the time taken
by loading Moose, it makes 10 minutes just to check what are are dependencies Mondrian
has.
>
Well, temporary solutions sometimes become less than temporary... I fear this is the
case.
Maybe we can do something with an incremental, on-demand cache: whenever a class or
method is imported, we check whether the cache has been built for it - if not, we built
it.
After playing a bit with the idea tonight, now I remember why I choose the global cache
solution. So I explain how it works in the current system:
To build the system cache, I go over all classes and all class extensions of PackageInfos
and register their most specific package.
Since I go over the whole system, I assume I know all class extensions in all classes.
Now when I ask the package for a method, there are two cases:
- either I can find it in the cache of class extensions and I return its package
- either I can't find it, so I assume it is a normal method and retrieve the package
of its class (from the cache).
Now in an incremental cache system, I can cache a class when I import it, I can even
cache a package so that its class extensions are imported, as above. The big problem is
then that I can't assume that I know all class extensions within the class, because
other packages (which I don't necessarily import) may do some. To do that, I should
ask all methods within each imported class for its most specific package. This was more or
less the situation we had before the cache, which brought the system to its knees on large
projects. Perhaps I will try tomorrow but I don't have high hope. We need something
better than that.
--
Simon
5437
days inactive
5440
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Simon Denier