On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:56:00 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:29:07AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > In terms of xpdf performance, can those concerned please try files that > > they consider big with the poppler-ized version and compare that to the > > original xpdf so we can actually quantify the impact (if there even is > > one). Speculating doesn't really get us anywhere. We need a > > quantified impact. > > I have not tested the poplerized version of xdpf yet. Because you > mentioned speculations, let me in turn say that I have not seen > your answers yet on the questions I raised in my first mail (besides > some speculations, of course). Rogério mentioned some facts (thanks!) > but could you please provide more details?
I can't say anything definitive, but I can speculate that it will not be a problem, and here is the logic: xpdf's rendering code is itself essentially an older version of poppler. I doubt the poppler developers have intentionally made that code itself any slower, and it was possible to interface xpdf to poppler without a significant rewrite (a couple minor few-line patches and a bunch of variable renaming that doesn't have any impact). Hence any performance differences to be found between evince and xpdf will reside in the non-poppler code. Restated; even with switch to poppler, the original xpdf zoom/display logic remains, and that will be the primary driving factor for performance. But even so, it should be tested. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100604160521.3e6dc593.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
