From exmh-workers-admin@redhat.com Thu Aug 29 10:57:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035ED44156 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:57:52 +0100 (IST) Received: from listman.example.com (listman.example.com [66.187.233.211]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SJRDZ07339 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:27:13 +0100 Received: from listman.example.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04BB40F04; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: exmh-workers@listman.example.com Received: from int-mx1.corp.example.com (int-mx1.corp.example.com [172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9140C40E6D for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:25:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SJPs717242 for exmh-workers@listman.redhat.com; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:25:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.example.com (mx1.example.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7SJPrY17238 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:25:53 -0400 Received: from austin-jump.vircio.com (jump-austin.vircio.com [192.12.3.99]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7SJAll27212 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:10:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 441 invoked by uid 104); 28 Aug 2002 19:25:53 -0000 Received: from cwg-exmh@DeepEddy.Com by localhost.localdomain with qmail-scanner-0.90 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4219. . Clean. Processed in 0.331062 secs); 28/08/2002 14:25:52 Received: from deepeddy.vircio.com (@[10.1.2.1]) (envelope-sender ) by austin-jump.vircio.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Aug 2002 19:25:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 28127 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 19:25:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO deepeddy.vircio.com) (?f46tRJtoOisJVssRW1MCBE4W+rSkOi7T?@[127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender ) by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Aug 2002 19:25:49 -0000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Brent Welch Cc: Robert Elz , exmh-workers@example.com Subject: Re: New Sequences Window In-Reply-To: <200208281732.NAA05316@blackcomb.panasas.com> References: <1030544555.28815.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <1030028647.6462.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <1029945287.4797.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <1029882468.3116.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <9627.1029933001@munnari.OZ.AU> <1029943066.26919.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <1029944441.398.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> <13277.1030015920@munnari.OZ.AU> <21099.1030543590@munnari.OZ.AU> <22628.1030545866@munnari.OZ.AU> <200208281732.NAA05316@blackcomb.panasas.com> X-Url: http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg X-Image-Url: http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/chris.gif MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1089505257P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1030562749.28110.TMDA@deepeddy.vircio.com> From: Chris Garrigues X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.57 Reply-To: Chris Garrigues X-Loop: exmh-workers@example.com Sender: exmh-workers-admin@example.com Errors-To: exmh-workers-admin@example.com X-Beenthere: exmh-workers@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion list for EXMH developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:25:47 -0500 X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times. X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.0 required=7.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,MULTIPART_SIGNED, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,X_LOOP version=2.40-cvs X-Spam-Level: --==_Exmh_1089505257P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > From: Brent Welch > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:32:42 -0700 > > > >>>Robert Elz said: > > Mh_Sequence also goes and rereads the files (.mh_sequences and the > > context file) but I'm not sure how frequently that one is called. > > In some places I maintain caches of files by checking their modify time, > but the sequence files are soo small that by the time you stat them to > check their date stamp, you could just read them again. Do you really think this is true? I added a modify time check thinking that it would make an improvement since we were reading it a *lot* more times in the new code because we're trying to use the sequences. On the other hand, the sequences files are probably being read out of cache when that happens anyway. Even with a small file, I'd think that the time taken to do a [file mtime $filename] would be worth it. My code is in proc MhReadSeqs. Chris -- Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com 716 Congress, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 +1 512 374 0500 World War III: The Wrong-Doers Vs. the Evil-Doers. --==_Exmh_1089505257P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.2_20000822 06/23/2000 iD8DBQE9bSO7K9b4h5R0IUIRArNLAKCEDkKX52y2P9sdtrcPsgTEmGZhBgCfe2QY VNJN/s+r1/dmpUA2v+Gihc4= =wxvL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1089505257P-- _______________________________________________ Exmh-workers mailing list Exmh-workers@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-workers