On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ralf Engels <ralf-eng...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:03:34 -0400 >> From: Jeff Mitchell <mitch...@kde.org> >> Subject: Re: [Amarok] b18a028: Use shared memory for collection >> scanner to rememb >> To: maximilian.koss...@gmail.com, amarok-devel@kde.org >> Cc: kde-comm...@kde.org >> Message-ID: <4cd55226.9030...@kde.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> On 11/06/2010 05:38 AM, Maximilian Kossick wrote: >> > One of the reasons for collection scanner as a separate executable was >> > to prevent a crash in collectionscanner from bringing down Amarok as >> > well. As both processes only communicated with each other via files or >> > stdout/stdin, this was relatively safe. Is it ensured that a >> > corrpution of the shared memory data does not crash both processes? >> >> This is especially important as TagLib has a history of being quite >> crashy on corrupted files (which are quite common). (The old ScanManager >> tried to skip such files if the scanner was crashing on a particular >> file (with mixed success) by restarting the scanner.) >> >> --Jeff >> > > Hi Jeff, > the new scanner also skips the files where it crashed. > > I just needs to have a method to save the information about the bad > files. > The old version used a normal text file which might cause problems when > the filenames have such stupid things as newlines in them. > The my version used to use QSettings which turned out to be very slow. > The very last version uses a shared memory which is both fast and (as > taglib is not accessing the memory) also quite safe. > An additional benefit is that several running scanners will not longer > corrupt each others files.
Ok, newlines might be a problem unless properly escaped, but I do not think that we should start using shared meory just because QSettings is slow. I'd suggest either going back to the previous method, or writing to a XML file using QXmlStreamWriter. > Also while playing around with taglib I never encountered a crash > directly caused by taglib. > If it weren't for the batch mode I would recommend to forget about a > seperate scanning process. > > Also since File.cpp and AFTUtil.cpp is directly using taglib they will > run into the same taglib problems. So a potential crash is not prevented > but only less likely. > > BR, > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > Amarok-devel mailing list > Amarok-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel > _______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
