Hi WanMil,
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:18:41 +0100 From: wmgcnfg@web.de To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Merging back the performance branch
Hi WanMil,
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 16:28:12 +0100 From: wmgcnfg@web.de To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: [mkgmap-dev] Merging back the performance branch
Hi Gerd,
in your opinion what is the current status of the performance branch? There seem to be no more fundamental changes so I would like to focus on merging it back to the trunk. Additional improvements can then be applied to the trunk.
well, r2234 doesn't contain all patches that I've posted. Do you plan to add them?
Of course, but I want to have a look on the patches before commiting them.
okay, take your time.
My latest version contains another big change regarding Tags and StyledConverter. I'd like to change the Rule evaluation in a way that it will allow to skip many rules that are now partly evaluated. Up to now my changes are saving maybe 5% - 10 %, but I hope to see more. I don't think that this will be done soon.
We can merge back the performance branch and continue using it for the style changes.
fine
I have an idea how splitArea() could be changed to be much faster, but no algorithm yet. I believe that we don't need any Area.intersect() calculations for that, we just have to split a few lines.
That's great. Maybe you can invest your time better in other points of mkgmap with a greater improvement. Performance improvements are great but there are some functional problems unsolved, e.g. the Subdivision creation in mkgmap has some problems which need to be addressed.
I'd like to do that if I had an idea what it means. I am not yet familiar with the whole code. So, what I need to correct errors is a very precise description like "with the steps 1) ... 2) ... 3) .. I get a result abc, and I'm missing blabla in it"
The performance improvements are great. Before merging back I would like to invite people (and give them the chance) to test it carefully. For this I will upload the complete world bounds so that anyone can
participate.
good. I can't believe that so many changes do not contain any bugs:-)
From my point of view the following things must be done before merging back: * Remove several System.out printouts. Please use the mkgmap internal logging system. * One note to the logging system: Instead of using log.info("There were "+n+" results") better use log.info("There were", n, "results") This avoids string creation in case the log message is not logged.
okay, I will change that
* Please check the code with FindBugs or something similar
okay, I wasn't aware that this tool is for free :-)
* Is the source code well documented?
hard to say. I tend to comment only those lines that implement a tricky solution. Everything else should be self-documenting.
* Is the licence header added to all classes? What would the right one?
I don't know if there is a 'correct' one but I am using the following: /* * Copyright (C) 2006, 2012. * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or * version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU * General Public License for more details. */
Okay, so I'll use that one as well. Gerd