Re: A proposal for the improvement of the delay pools

On Monday 15 April 2002 09:33, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> It depends on the approach again. With "yours" it mostly relies on
> configuration parameters, with "mine" the overhead is all in
> keyed (or "class" as I called them) pools, and it means basically
> an hashtable or a splaytree or whatever accessor is faster for
> each defined pool.

I would say the two approaches are identical there. The best indexing
method depends on the "class attribute" or "key" used.

The difference between the two is mainly tree or matrix hierarchy.

With tree hierarchy and "first match", then the most common kinds of
configurations becomes quite easy. The matrix approach allows for
some increased flexibility, but puts more demands on the acl
configurations.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Apr 15 2002 - 02:40:55 MDT