W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-jigsaw@w3.org > May to June 1996

Re:How does DirectoryResource keeps its listing?

From: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:32:34 +0500
Message-Id: <9606240232.AA12771@www18.w3.org>
To: alex@access.com.au (Alexandre Rafalovitch)
Cc: www-jigsaw@w3.org
Alexandre Rafalovitch writes:
 > Thanks for the promt reply. One more clarification/question is bellow.
 > At 8:48 PM on 23/6/96, Anselm Baird-Smith wrote:
 > >  > Am I right and I can use any locals as far as I know they can dissapear at
 > >  > any time? Is there any way to keep information in locals for as long as I
 > >  > can and then just before unloading, write it to the file?
 > >
 > > Yes local can disappear at any point of time. The resource will be
 > > notified (through a call to notifyUnload) before it disappear back to
 > > disk.
 > How much can I abuse notifyUnload time. If I keep a lot of information in
 > locals, and I have to write it to the disk AND I want to keep information
 > in my own files not Persistant Attributes, because there is a lot of
 > information to store. Does holding notifyUnload holds up  clients or it is
 > running from a completely separate thread and does not interfere with
 > Request fulfilling in any way.

It won't interfere with request fullfilling in any way: all this is
run in a separate thread of control (the Sweeper thread). One thing
you should consider is that attribute are automatically made editable
by jigsaw (I don't know what kind of things you are saving, but if its
something like config info, it's better to put them in attributes, so
that the user interface of Jigsaw makes them editable).

 > If it does interfere, can you give an estimation of what you thing could be
 > the longest operation, that still does not make Jigsaw noticably slower?
 > Reading a writing 20K file inside of notifyUnload? Creating a directory
 > with 10 files in it, and writing 1K of data in each of them? etc. Maybe I
 > am better off adding a separate staticly accessable thread for myself that
 > would do such things?

No need to bother, you will probably consumje some of the time of the
sweeper thread, but that's why it is a separate thread...

Received on Sunday, 23 June 1996 22:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:20 UTC