> 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