RE: [cdt-dev] Major PDOM changes in HEAD

[Ed Warnicke <eaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure I follow you.  The model I was considering was
having a central service that does builds the database, with
the result being pushed out to the team.

Ed
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 08:22 +0200, Schorn, Markus wrote:
> Hmm, if you do offline indexing you really also want to be able to share
> the results within a team. For that you have to be able to combine
> multiple
> databases in your queries.
> Markus. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> > Sent: Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 06:30
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Major PDOM changes in HEAD
> > 
> > Hi Ed,
> > 
> > This shouldn't prohibit off-line indexing. The database 
> > doesn't really know
> > about projects or workspaces. It only knows about files and 
> > the symbols,
> > macros, inclusions, amongst other things that are contained 
> > in those files.
> > This should make it easy to copy information from one 
> > database to another.
> > 
> > Now, of course the off-line indexing will need to be done 
> > with a headless
> > Eclipse instance with the appropriate Application extension 
> > to run it. But
> > more thought and work needs to be put in it to figure out the 
> > right way to
> > do this.
> > 
> > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
> > http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> >  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:32 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Major PDOM changes in HEAD
> > 
> > Doug,
> > 	Doesn't a DB per workspace sort of kill any future hopes
> > of pre generating the DB offline?  I'm not talking about 
> > remoting here,
> > just plain old fashion prepopulating...
> > 
> > Ed
> > On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 21:26 -0400, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> > > Actually, the PDOM was always in the .metadata directory. 
> > Now, instead of
> > > having one database per project, there is only one database 
> > per workspace.
> > > 
> > > And because the PDOM is memory mapped into the Eclipse 
> > process, it has to
> > be
> > > local. Right now I'm having enough trouble squeezing reasonable
> > performance
> > > out of a strictly local architecture. I have no idea how to 
> > properly do
> > > remote projects. For that, I'll need some help :).
> > > 
> > > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> > > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
> > > http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf Of Greg Watson
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:07 PM
> > > To: CDT General developers list.
> > > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Major PDOM changes in HEAD
> > > 
> > > Doug,
> > > 
> > > I know this is a bit left of base, bit I wonder if this change is  
> > > going to make support for remote projects more difficult? I had  
> > > imagined that if the PDOM database was stored in the project  
> > > directory then it should be able to be generated on the remote  
> > > machine, but still be visible to Eclipse running on the local  
> > > machine. If the database is stored at the workspace level then I  
> > > don't think this approach will work any more (unless the whole  
> > > workspace is remote.)
> > > 
> > > Just a thought.
> > > 
> > > Greg
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 18, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hey gang,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have made some major last minute changes to improve PDOM  
> > > > performance. First, the PDOM database is now per 
> > workspace instead  
> > > > of per project. This will allow projects to share 
> > indexing results  
> > > > with each other. It may also lead to weird results but, for the  
> > > > moment, it is worth it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I have done some caching so that the indexer accesses the  
> > > > PDOM less often during a parse. This has given me a 
> > Firefox index  
> > > > time of 13 minutes compared to 53 minutes in CDT 3.0.2. This may  
> > > > fluctuate as I spend the rest of this release and 3.1.1 
> > making it  
> > > > more accurate, but it is a huge step forward.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I apologize for the late churn and promise to make  
> > > > sure indexing and the features that use the index remain 
> > robust for  
> > > > our GA release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> > > >
> > > > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
> > > >
> > > > http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev