| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
complex than a simple key-value pair.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We have to access properties, so we need the mapper anyways, and the
ApplicationDomainType type shouldn't be a large overhead anyways.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the initial refactoring to improve how we deal with the storage.
It does a couple of things:
* Rename Sink::Storage to Sink::Storage::DataStore to free up the
Sink::Storage namespace
* Introduce a Sink::ResourceContext to have a single object that can be
passed around containing everything that is necessary to operate on a
resource. This is a lot better than the multiple separate parameters
that we used to pass around all over the place, while still allowing
for dependency injection for tests.
* Tie storage access together using the new EntityStore that directly
works with ApplicationDomainTypes. This gives us a central place where
main storage, indexes and buffer adaptors are tied together, which
will also give us a place to implement external indexes, such as a
fulltextindex using xapian.
* Use ApplicationDomainTypes as the default way to pass around entities.
Instead of using various ways to pass around entities (buffers,
buffer adaptors, ApplicationDomainTypes), only use a single way.
The old approach was confusing, and was only done as:
* optimization; really shouldn't be necessary and otherwise I'm sure
we can find better ways to optimize ApplicationDomainType itself.
* a way to account for entities that have multiple buffers, a concept
that I no longer deem relevant.
While this commit does the bulk of the work to get there, the following
commits will refactor more stuff to get things back to normal.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
DataStoreQuery now encapsulates the low-level query that operates
directly on the storage. It no longer has access to the resource
buffers, and is instantiated by the type implementation, so we can
specialize the query alogorithm per type, but not per resource.
This will allow us to implement the threading queries for the mailtype.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of a single #define as debug area the new system allows for an
identifier for each debug message with the structure component.area.
The component is a dot separated identifier of the runtime component,
such as the process or the plugin.
The area is the code component, and can be as such defined at
compiletime.
The idea of this system is that it becomes possible to i.e. look at the
output of all messages in the query subsystem of a specific resource
(something that happens in the client process, but in the
resource-specific subcomponent).
The new macros are supposed to be less likely to clash with other names,
hence the new names.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Instead of hardcoding assumptions all over the place we create typesafe
setters and getters for all properties.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
(except for documentation).
|
| |
|
|
| |
Multiple initial queries can be running at the same time.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
A central location for all types to specify what properties are
indexed, and how to query them.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of having the asynchronous preprocessor concept with different
pipelines for new/modify/delete we have a single pipeline with
synchronous preprocessors that act upon new/modify/delete.
This keeps the code simpler due to lack of asynchronity and keeps the
new/modify/delete operations together (which at least for the indexing
makes a lot of sense).
Not supporting asynchronity is ok because the tasks done in
preprocessing are not cpu intensive (if they were we had a problem
since they are directly involved in the round-trip time), and the main
cost comes from i/o, meaning we don't gain much by doing multithreading.
Costly tasks (such as full-text indexing) should rather be implemented
as post-processing, since that doesn't increase the round-trip time directly,
and eventually consistent is typically good enough for that.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Mails in inbox!
|
|
|
Adding new types definitely needs to become easier.
|
