On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:12:15PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:47:32PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >> John Levon wrote: > >> > >> > What's expected ? Waiting two seconds to switch between moderately > >> > sized documents ? That's what I'm seeing, and I would not call it > >> > acceptable. > >> > >> That's current cvs? We need new ideas... > > > > As the second buffer is already broken into rows, there is not really a > > need for a rebreak on buffer change, is there? > > In order to implement this, we need to couple the lyxtext to the buffer. > Even if it seems bad data/view separation, it's plain weird the fact that a > buffer contains all "internal" lyxtexts but the topmost one. So the > data/view separation problem is already here.
I think one solution which sounds expensive but probably is not at all is to get rid of the RowLists entirely and re-compute everything on demand (i.e. once per user interaction - we do something similar already). This way one paragraph can be shown in two places without problems and without having 'RowList caches'. This would leave only cursor and selection data in the LyXText which could be moved easily to the BufferView - especially so if we have a 'global cursor'. So I am not too concerned about the violation of the data/view separation as my guess is that we won't need the data in the end and it does not matter whether we remove it from a nicely spearated scheme or some mess... > I think we should remember the 'multiple bv for one Buffer' issue when > considering the alternatives. I always keep it in mind but I am not too concerned as long as I see some solution that fits in the scheme. Andre'
