[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [p2-dev] Use of uncompressed metadata repositories
- From: Hugues Malphettes <hmalphettes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:44:47 -0800
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Maybe this is slightly off-topic: I keep most of my composite repositories uncompressed.
I shamelessly maintain them by hand and with some custom scripts.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Most people should be using the zipped format. I'm personally not too fussed about the uncompressed version, as we have a solution (compress it). There is at least one good use for the uncompressed version however, and that's if you are only accessing local repositories (and you have lots of disk space). In this case, the extra time to unzip the repo might not be worth it.
There is another interesting problem with our repositories (and the duplication of licenses), and that's the amount of garbage we produce when parsing. While we do use a String pool, we first create separate strings, then find the duplicates in the pool. I noticed that parsing a 50M (unzipped) repository took over 200M of heap space.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dean Roberts <Dean_Roberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
So does anybody have an opinion on how
widely used uncompressed repositories are?
I can't comment on other projects, but we took the defaults for PDE build in e4 and it looks like we get a content.xml and artifacts.xml, instead of the jar.
Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484http://eclipsesource.com
p2-dev mailing list