Re: Patch to provide support for application/x-zerosize

On 28 September 2012 00:59, Norm Pierce <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> I haven't looked at why caching is off. Should we enable it?
>
> Last week I took a look into this, to see if it would be worth trying to
> get ROX-Filer working with mime.cache.
>
> I got it going (with the old xdgmime code that was still in ROX-Filer last
> week) and did some time trials, to see if the response improved
> significantly.  Although there was some improvement, my conclusion was
> that it was so minor that it did not warrant the effort required to get it
> going, risk subjecting users to any new bugs that might be introduced, fix
> those bugs, and maintain the two sets of functions (one that is used with
> cache, and one that is used without).
>
> My opinion: In theory, cache is wonderful, and worthwhile when speed is
> improved significantly, but in reality the level of complication
> introduced, and the problems that can arise, make cache a detriment if the
> speed improvement is only minor.

Thanks for the detailed report - sounds like keeping it off is indeed
the right thing to do.


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got visibility?
Most devs has no idea what their production app looks like.
Find out how fast your code is with AppDynamics Lite.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219671;13503038;y?
http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html