[gmpi] Re: Bridging GUIDs and URIs
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:01:06 +0000
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:50:27AM -0500, Ron Kuper wrote:
> >>>
> > Using a hash of a URI seems like the worst of both worlds to me...
> Care to explain why?
> <<<
>
> Because this would add a layer of indirection without any benefit. What
> I mean is, we decide that URI will be used to both uniquely identify a
> plugin as well as locate it, then our factory code ought to simply take
> a URI, not a UUID.
OK, my mistake. I thought that the UUID (or GUID, whatever) was a
requirement of the COM interface.
> I'm a bit worried that if we get too deep into URIs, we're going to get
> into a situation where other hosts and/or plugins could run into similar
> bottlenecks.
OK, well I have a lot of experience of managing extremly large numbers of
URIs (in excess of 30M in one system). The technique that I use commonly
is to localy dereference the URI once (eg. when loading plugin metadata by
URI) when maintain an object referring to the resource associated with the
URI, via a hash table. It requires an acceptable hash table implementation,
but the one in glib (for example) is very good.
In practice the number of lookups you have to do against the URI is small,
and in any case the performance is very good. For GMPI were only talking
about referring to plugins by URI.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
