Re: Multiple Undo devours RAM
Re: Multiple Undo devours RAM
- Subject: Re: Multiple Undo devours RAM
- From: Erez Anzel <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:01:23 -0500
Thanks, Florent. I will consider your suggestion in my redesign, such
as more compact storage of data in my Undo stack. I will get into some
more specifics in the thread "Designing for multitudinous objects".
Bye...Erez
On 29-Jan-04, at 9:33 AM, Florent Pillet wrote:
>
You are aware that Mac OS X uses virtual memory, right? So the
>
difference between systematically going to the disk for storing
>
undoable objects and storing them in RAM and having the system page
>
the ram to the disk would probably be minimil from a performance
>
standpoint.
>
>
Have you tried an alternative scheme like compressing the data stored
>
on the Undo stack?
>
>
Florent
>
>
On 28 janv. 04, at 16:05, Erez Anzel wrote:
>
>
> UNDO STACK ON DISK: Instead of my large Undo stack entries going into
>
> RAM, and then into virtual memory (i.e. disk) when RAM gets tight, I
>
> propose the opposite as an option. I realize that this is complicated
>
> by the fact that dumping items to a file means that pointers have to
>
> be converted into something useful when the information is retrieved.
>
> Assuming that the user does not Undo nearly as often as they perform
>
> other tasks, I'd say that it's better to use RAM for more common
>
> tasks, and write my Undo and Redo stacks directly to disk. The stacks
>
> could easily grow to hundreds of megabytes. I'd love to see this as
>
> an option in Cocoa; I'm not suggesting that I write it myself.
>
>
>
--
>
Florent Pillet, Code Segment email@hidden
>
Developer tools and end-user products for Palm OS & Mac OS X
>
ICQ: 117292463 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fpillet
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.