Issue 2161 - Add an option for disabling element hiding filters

Issue 2161 - Add an option for disabling element hiding filters

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-03-20 08:10:32]

In addition to this, we should keep element hiding filters from getting loaded
in the first place - they're still using up memory there

[tschuster, 2015-04-13 09:50:06]

On 2015/03/20 08:10:32, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> In addition to this, we should keep element hiding filters from getting loaded
> in the first place - they're still using up memory there

Good idea! What should happen when somebody had element hiding disabled and
enables it again, should we somehow load the filters from the list again? I am
not sure how that would work.

[tschuster, 2015-06-17 10:48:03]

On 2015/04/13 09:50:06, tschuster wrote:
> On 2015/03/20 08:10:32, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > In addition to this, we should keep element hiding filters from getting
loaded
> > in the first place - they're still using up memory there
> 
> Good idea! What should happen when somebody had element hiding disabled and
> enables it again, should we somehow load the filters from the list again? I am
> not sure how that would work.

With this we don't add the filter to the internal ElemHide arrays for mapping
between key and filter. Do we also want to block adding them to the
filterStorage? Can we get away with just doing nothing in
filterStorage.addFilter?

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-06-17 12:17:02]

On 2015/06/17 10:48:03, tschuster wrote:
> On 2015/04/13 09:50:06, tschuster wrote:
> > On 2015/03/20 08:10:32, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > > In addition to this, we should keep element hiding filters from getting
> loaded
> > > in the first place - they're still using up memory there
> > 
> > Good idea! What should happen when somebody had element hiding disabled and
> > enables it again, should we somehow load the filters from the list again? I
am
> > not sure how that would work.
> 
> With this we don't add the filter to the internal ElemHide arrays for mapping
> between key and filter. Do we also want to block adding them to the
> filterStorage? Can we get away with just doing nothing in
> filterStorage.addFilter?

I think it'd be best to keep them from getting stored in memory in the first
place, i.e. change this in filterStorage. I'm a bit rusty with the core code,
but I think that should suffice, and with that we'd significantly cut down
memory usage of the main/background process.

[tschuster, 2015-07-29 10:59:24]

On 2015/06/17 12:17:02, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> On 2015/06/17 10:48:03, tschuster wrote:
> > On 2015/04/13 09:50:06, tschuster wrote:
> > > On 2015/03/20 08:10:32, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > > > In addition to this, we should keep element hiding filters from getting
> > loaded
> > > > in the first place - they're still using up memory there
> > > 
> > > Good idea! What should happen when somebody had element hiding disabled
and
> > > enables it again, should we somehow load the filters from the list again?
I
> am
> > > not sure how that would work.
> > 
> > With this we don't add the filter to the internal ElemHide arrays for
mapping
> > between key and filter. Do we also want to block adding them to the
> > filterStorage? Can we get away with just doing nothing in
> > filterStorage.addFilter?
> 
> I think it'd be best to keep them from getting stored in memory in the first
> place, i.e. change this in filterStorage. I'm a bit rusty with the core code,
> but I think that should suffice, and with that we'd significantly cut down
> memory usage of the main/background process.

Do we even still want this after the recent element-hiding memory reductions?

[Wladimir Palant, 2017-12-21 10:49:52]

This is a change of our legacy code base, closing.