[Zope-CMF] DCWorkflow Worklists are very expensive

[robert]

I have not yet looked into actiontools too closely. But I have a gut 
feeling that it shouls be possible to tune it in a way that it does not 
construct answers fo all its action providers each time a list of 
actions is compiled. Now (I think) when we have 10 action providers 
10*10 results are compiled.

Robert

John Morton wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 23:32, Chris Withers wrote:
>  
>
>>John Morton wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Every time a worklist action is rendered, it must do a catalog query to
>>>find out if any there are any objects in that state, and how many. This,
>>>as Shane has noted in the past,  is kinda expensive :-)
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm guessing this is actually "Every time getFilteredActionsFor is called".
>>One possibility is to only call getFilteredActionsFor once per rendered
>>page.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Off the top of my head, I can think of a few potential solutions. One is
>>>to tune up your catalog.
>>>      
>>>
>>What tuning would you invisige doing?
>>    
>>
>
>After a closer inspection of the available catalog tuning parameters, I have 
>to conclude that this was wishful thinking on my part :-)
>
>  
>
>>>Another is to change the worklists to just indicate
>>>whether there are or are not any items in the worklist, using a catalog
>>>query that stops on the first item found. I think this is theoretically
>>>possible, but I don't know enough about the catalog to know for sure.
>>>      
>>>
>>ZCatalog can't do that.
>>    
>>
>
>Bummer :-(
>
>  
>
>>>Another solution is to create a new action catagory called something like
>>>'memberarea', which is only included if you are viewing pages under your
>>>own personal memberarea, and have the worklist actions appear under that.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't think this would help. You'd still be calculating the action each
>>time, you just wouldn't eb using it unless the memberarea category was
>>visible.
>>    
>>
>
>So getFilteredActionsFor would need to be hacked to only get actions for 
>categories we're interested in rendering?
>
>John
>
>
>  
>