On 09/11/2011 13:16, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
Il 08/11/2011 21:37, Abdelrazak Younes ha scritto:
Too complicated for my taste :-)
What do you mean by "complicated", here ? Parallel is always more
complicated than sequential. Still, we can't keep living in the
sequential world, I guess you know.
Actually no. Don't get me wrong, thread are nice and we should use them
whenever needed. In the case of Advanced search, I reckon that we need
only one new thread to keep the UI responsive while the search is done
in the background. This thread would communicate the matched string to
the GUI thread so that it can display it, sequentially. Anything more is
just a pretext to not address the real issue. Threads is not always
about using all available processors.
Let's put it this way: this parallel patch is a small, incremental
modification to the code base that speeds up searching on most
nowadays PCs.
First, I don't think your patch is small. Second, the need for mutexes
is often a sign that something is wrong in the architecture.
Compare with rewriting the search capability from scratch, that would
require a huge invasive patch modifying probably each and every
inset.... that deserves the "complicated" adjective, IMHO :-)
Who said that we should rewrite from scratch? You could begin at least
with Paragraphs. Then one inset at the time. I believe the code will
hugely benefits from this work as we would then have means to compare
easily and effciently two paragraphs, two insets, etc. I guess that
could be useful for Change-Tracking for example.
[but, again, I agree that it would also reduce the search time by one
or two orders of magnitude].
Here at least we agree ;-)
Cheers,
Abdel.
