ginormous performance issue

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Friday 17 July 2009, Alexis Ménard wrote:
> I like the new method and deprecate the old one if it's not anymore needed.

the old method is just fine for "yes, cache this now" and is indeed simpler to 
use (no need to ensure a unique id, e.g.), the new method would be for the "i 
MAY want to cache this, but it MAY change in the near future or disappear 
altogether" use case. it's probably a fairly even split between the two uses, 
looking over our current code. so i don't think we'd need to deprecate any. we 
could merge the two when we break BC next if the id comes last in the 
signature, however.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20090717/55749fc2/attachment.sig