[Nepomuk] Review Request 110317: kinotify: Optimize the filterWatch process

[Commit Hook]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110317/#review32098
-----------------------------------------------------------


This review has been submitted with commit 61409470905179289ae72abf98869fe3571f9649 by Vishesh Handa to branch master.

- Commit Hook


On May 5, 2013, 11:26 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110317/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 5, 2013, 11:26 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Nepomuk, Àlex Fiestas and Simeon Bird.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
>     kinotify: Optimize the filterWatch process
>     
>     The FilterWatch is used to to not add watches to everything.
>     Specifically we do not add watches to names in the exclude list. Also
>     we only monitor for creation and modification events in the include
>     folders.
>     
>     FileIndexerConfig::shouldFileBeIndexed and shouldFolderBeIndexed have a
>     lot of duplicate code internally. They both use the expensive RegExp
>     cache.
>     
>     It's better if we only use the RegExp cache once.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   services/fileindexer/fileindexerconfig.h 9d2d890 
>   services/fileindexer/fileindexerconfig.cpp b09c915 
>   services/filewatch/nepomukfilewatch.cpp fbbf3db 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110317/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> It's faster
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vishesh Handa
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20130505/fc0752b3/attachment-0001.html>