Hi David, I think those parameters are fine. They don't seem like they will materially add to any disk space / bandwidth requirements.
Thanks. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:51 AM, David Planella <david.plane...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > I guess this will depend on the scope, but to give an example we can take > the click scope: > > - Scope code (translations shipped in .mo files): 15 messages > - Scope ini file (assuming we only want to translate the DisplayName key in > the ini file): 1 message > > So in terms of space, the inline translations approach has the disadvantage > of containing all translations in the ini file, whereas .mo files are > language-specific and we can choose which languages we want to install by > default. That said, ini files would only contain 1 translatable string (and > let's say 40 translated versions of that string). > > Let me know if this provides enough context. > > Cheers, > David. > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Alex Chiang <achi...@canonical.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, David Planella >> <david.plane...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> > >> > We think using this option (inline translations in the ini files vs >> > reading >> > the translations from .mo files) is the best solution in terms of >> > performance when reading the list of scopes, but we'd like to hear other >> > comments/views too. >> >> What is the typical number of strings in a scope? >> >> My guess is fairly minimal, but would like to see some data. >> >> [The context of my question is to understand the disk size >> implications of inline translations...] >> >> Thanks. > > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
