On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 21:46, Johan Compagner <
jcompagner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> i haven't seen any side effects, and it is now already for quite some time
> in real end user releases
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 16:30, Jae Gangemi <
jgangemi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> are there any other possible ways to address this?
>>
>> johan: at this point, have you seen any negative side effects?
>>
>> if no other solutions have been thought off, perhaps this could be added
>> w/ a way to turn it on/off (perhaps via a language toolkit method) until
>> something better comes along?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Alexey Panchenko
>> <
alex.panchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I remember we discussed it and I wasn't sure it should be fixed this way.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 21:04, Jae Gangemi <
jgangemi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > is there a reason you haven't pushed the patch upstream?
>>> >
>>> > i'd prefer not to be in the business of rolling my own core plugin
>>> > sets,
>>> > at least not yet, i've got enough on my plate w/ this thing as it is.
>>> > :)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Johan Compagner
>>> > <
jcompagner@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> local, i have some patches to the dltk and we ship our own plugins
>>> >> that we
>>> >> build our self.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 16:23, Jae Gangemi <
jgangemi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> do you have this patched in a sub-class or are you just using a
>>> >>> local
>>> >>> patched version of the core?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> i'm just trying to figure out where i'd drop this in (although it
>>> >>> does
>>> >>> seem like it's just a potential bug in general).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Johan Compagner
>>> >>> <
jcompagner@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Not sure if this is related but this is my patch that i have in
>>> >>>> SourceModule
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> public void makeConsistent(IProgressMonitor monitor) throws
>>> >>>> ModelException {
>>> >>>> // if (isConsistent())
>>> >>>> // return;
>>> >>>> // makeConsistent(false/*don't create AST*/, 0, monitor);
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> HashSet<Openable> elementsOutOfSynchWithBuffers =
>>> >>>> ModelManager
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> .getModelManager().getElementsOutOfSynchWithBuffers();
>>> >>>> synchronized (elementsOutOfSynchWithBuffers) {
>>> >>>> if (!elementsOutOfSynchWithBuffers.contains(this))
>>> >>>> return;
>>> >>>> elementsOutOfSynchWithBuffers.remove(this);
>>> >>>> }
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> openWhenClosed(createElementInfo(), monitor);
>>> >>>> }
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> the above method is what i use, because i also did see double
>>> >>>> parsing
>>> >>>> and so on.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And we also use very large files so it was noticeable..
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 22:22, Jae Gangemi <
jgangemi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> hello all -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> i'm noticing some kind of ISourceModuleInfo cache miss occuring
>>> >>>>> in
>>> >>>>> the SourceParserUtil.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> when i double click on a document to open in the editor, the
>>> >>>>> ISourceModuleInfo is requested (line 48 of SourceParserUtil) is NOT
>>> >>>>> the same
>>> >>>>> object that is returned when SourceParserUtil gets invoked by the
>>> >>>>> folding
>>> >>>>> structure code, but it is the same object when the Reconcile thread
>>> >>>>> fires
>>> >>>>> next.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> the double parse is causing some slow downs on more complex
>>> >>>>> objects.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> i've tried stepping through the code numerous times trying to
>>> >>>>> track
>>> >>>>> down the issue, but i haven't been able to figure out why the
>>> >>>>> objects aren't
>>> >>>>> the same. hopefully someone on the list can help. :)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> -jae
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> dltk-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> dltk-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> -jae
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> dltk-dev mailing list
>>> >>>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> dltk-dev mailing list
>>> >>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > -jae
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > dltk-dev mailing list
>>> >
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dltk-dev mailing list
>>>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -jae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dltk-dev mailing list
>>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dltk-dev mailing list
>
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev
>
_______________________________________________
dltk-dev mailing list
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev