RE: [cdt-dev] Indexer conf call?

["Voronin, Mikhail" <Mikhail.Voronin@xxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, If the goal is performance then benchmarks wouldn't hurt.

As for API freeze - it would be right thing to have majority of API
checked into CVS  before freeze.
Only slight changes in bug fixing process should be allowed after that
point.

The same for feature freeze.

Regards,
Mikhail Voronin
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:54 PM
>To: CDT General developers list.
>Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Indexer conf call?
>
>No, my objection is that I think there is a better solution 
>that minimizes
>the impact on the rest of the CDT while still making your 
>customers happy.
>
>Instead of discussion the what if's, I really want to see the 
>benchmarks.
>Having worked my *ss off to improve the performance of the indexer by
>ensuring each file is only parsed once, I think you'll be pleasantly
>surprised by the performance using remote files, even with 
>large projects.
>
>And remember this is only done once, all things like call 
>hierarchy, content
>assist, open decl, wouldn't need to parse remote files at all. 
>We also have
>a feature request to prebuild indexes as part of builds. If we 
>worked on
>that instead, it would even be faster.
>
>But that is my opinion, and I don't have access to these 
>environments to
>test, and I am easily swayed by facts.
>
>And all that being said, if this was truly only a remote 
>indexing solution,
>I would be O.K. with it. We have the interfaces to support 
>that. My real
>problem is with putting the clients remote as well, especially 
>since these
>will continue to evolve, likely by people who know little 
>about the remote
>story, and will be faced by this interface in the middle of the code.
>
>Again, I am one voice and I will go with the flow if I feel 
>I'm the only one
>who feels this way. I do need to speak now to ensure that that 
>we are truly
>doing the right thing for all CDT users. There are lots of 
>them now, I'd say
>almost a half a million, I want to make sure we aren't 
>compromising their
>features either.
>
>And I think I've said all I have to. My ears and mind are 
>open. Let wisdom
>prevail :).
>
>Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
>Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Greg Watson
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:36 PM
>> To: CDT General developers list.
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Indexer conf call?
>> 
>> Doug,
>> 
>> Is your objection really that there will only be one client of remote
>> indexing (although PTP will likely use it also)? If this is the case,
>> then does that mean that only features that are used by many
>> companies will ever be available in CDT? It seems a kind of
>> restrictive policy.
>> 
>> I understand the reluctance to introduce more complexity into CDT,
>> but I think that the benchmarks will find that the performance of
>> indexing large projects via a remote filesystem will be abysmal. File
>> system operations tend to be very low level, and both the indexing
>> operation and accessing the index remotely will likely result in a
>> much larger amount of network traffic that simply accessing a remote
>> database. Since we're dealing with millions of lines of code, I don't
>> think this indexing model will be scalable.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm not totally sure what you guys are talking about. If you are
>> > talking
>> > about the DAO thing, I don't consider that an API of the CDT. In
>> > fact I'd
>> > rather people not know about it. It is a hack to allow the IBM to
>> > tear apart
>> > the CDT at their whim while adding complexity to an already too
>> > complex
>> > architecture. No one else will benefit from it. Did I mention I
>> > really don't
>> > like this thing? ;) Until someone shows me the real costs, I will
>> > continue
>> > to believe that indexing locally and accessing the files over the
>> > wire is
>> > the correct architecture, especially now that the CDT 
>never parses an
>> > unchanged file more than once.
>> >
>> > So as such, the DAO interface can be changed whenever.
>> >
>> > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
>> > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-
>> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> >> Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:08 PM
>> >> To: CDT General developers list.
>> >> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Indexer conf call?
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure if you mean whether we (IBM) have slack in 
>terms of our
>> >> schedule for getting the items in before the freeze, or 
>if you mean
>> >> whether
>> >> we have slack as to what release of CDT they would go in.
>> >>
>> >> I'll try to answer both questions.
>> >>
>> >> If (big if...) we were going to move all the clients to 
>the DAO model
>> >> (call
>> >> hierarchy, type hierarchy, search, etc.), our internal schedule
>> >> says we
>> >> would be done this in early to mid April (I can break this down in
>> >> detail
>> >> if anyone is interested).  If the work only has to make the
>> >> feature freeze
>> >> then there is a couple of weeks of slack.  We didn't get consensus
>> >> yet
>> >> that
>> >> everyone has a warm fuzzy feeling about migrating all the clients
>> >> though.
>> >> For those clients that have already a good separation of UI and
>> >> back end
>> >> such as the call hierarchy and type hierarchy this would be a
>> >> relatively
>> >> simple process, but for other clients it might or might not take
>> >> more work
>> >> to factor out the back end.  For our part we are very 
>concerned with
>> >> making
>> >> sure that quality is maintained and we've been rigorously running
>> >> the UI
>> >> tests to make sure we haven't been breaking anything.
>> >>
>> >> In terms of CDT releases, that probably bears some discussion and
>> >> clarification...
>> >>
>> >> Markus was concerned about making it for API freeze... I guess the
>> >> questions we need to answer are what are our (as in CDT's) APIs
>> >> going to
>> >> be
>> >> and are we actually prepared to freeze them in two weeks 
>given that
>> >> feature
>> >> work is ongoing up until April 30th.  Some things are obviously
>> >> going to
>> >> be
>> >> API (IIndex and the like, new project model stuff, etc.) but in
>> >> terms of
>> >> the back end to the views and other index based services it's not
>> >> very
>> >> clear to me what is going to be API and what isn't.
>> >>
>> >> What is API and what is not has a lot of ramifications...
>> >>
>> >> - What are we freezing for API freeze?  Are we in fact freezing at
>> >> M6?
>> >> Personally I'm not sure it's practical to freeze API prior to
>> >> feature work
>> >> being done unless the system is very mature (i.e., if you are the
>> >> Eclipse
>> >> Platform and are not implementing  a huge amount of 
>features in this
>> >> release you have a much easier time of freezing API ahead of your
>> >> feature
>> >> delivery than we do).  That's just my $0.02 CDN though...
>> >>
>> >> - What can and cannot be put in between M6 and the feature freeze?
>> >>
>> >> - What can and cannot be done in CDT 4.1 that doesn't make it into
>> >> CDT
>> >> 4.0?
>> >> In a 4.1 we can add new API but can't break existing API. 
> To break
>> >> existing API we'd need a CDT 5.0, which would be a year from now.
>> >>
>> >> In terms of our own desires at IBM, a year is a long time to wait
>> >> because
>> >> it doesn't line up well with our product release cycle (it already
>> >> takes
>> >> almost a year for us to deploy products based on CDT, so 
>it would be
>> >> basically two years before anything consuming our proposed
>> >> functionality
>> >> would see the light of day if we had to wait until CDT 
>5.0 to get the
>> >> changes in).  It likely suits our purposes well enough if 
>we can get
>> >> something done this year, and we are not entirely picky 
>about which
>> >> release
>> >> that would be so long as the changes happen and we are not
>> >> restricted by
>> >> the versioning rules.
>> >>
>> >> What are people's thoughts on the API issues?
>> >>
>> >> ===========================
>> >>
>> >> Chris Recoskie
>> >> Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
>> >> IBM Toronto
>> >> http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   From:   Andrew.Ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >>   To:     "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >>   Date:   15/03/2007 03:06 PM
>> >>
>> >>   Subject Re: [cdt-dev] Indexer conf call?
>> >>   :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've posted minutes for the meeting here:
>> >>         
>http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/CDT/calls/IndexingMar2007_1
>> >> if I've missed anything then please add it in.
>> >>
>> >> We ran out of time at the end, just as we were discussing the
>> >> scale of
>> >> changes proposed. My next
>> >> question was going to be if you have any slack in terms of whether
>> >> these
>> >> changes make CDT 4.0?
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 
>*********************************************************************
>> >> *
>> >> Symbian Software Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales
>> >> with
>> >> registered number 4190020 and registered office at 2-6 
>Boundary Row,
>> >> Southwark, London, SE1 8HP, UK. This message is intended only for
>> >> use by
>> >> the named addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential
>> >> information. If you are not the named addressee you should not
>> >> disseminate,
>> >> copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
>received this
>> >> message in error please notify postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxx and 
>delete the
>> >> message and any attachments accompanying it immediately. Neither
>> >> Symbian
>> >> nor any of its Affiliates accepts liability for any corruption,
>> >> interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this
>> >> message in
>> >> transit or for any message sent by its employees which is not in
>> >> compliance
>> >> with Symbian corporate policy.
>> >> 
>*********************************************************************
>> >> *
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>