Posts: 17,418
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
590
Hitcher
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 17,418
2011-11-15, 11:59
(This post was last modified: 2011-11-20, 14:06 by Hitcher.)
What's wrong with just including it as normal?
<include>foo.xml</include>
You could always try it and see if it works but the correct format is this -
<include condition="Skin.HasSetting(foo)>foo.xml</include>
Posts: 212
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
1
Memory conservation is the only reason. Trying to remove 1 or 2 megs worth of code for all the different views. The plan was to conditionally include only the file with the code needed for the active view.
I tried <include condition="Skin.HasSetting(foo)">foo.xml</include> and it didn't work.
I also tried <include>foo.xml</include> and that didn't work either.
Posts: 212
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
1
Question. Why does eliminating 617kb worth of seperate files from my includes.xml free up almost 4MB worth of RAM? Does it have something to do with includes within includes within includes?
I N C L U C E P T I O N
Posts: 17,418
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
590
Hitcher
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 17,418
Using includes to reduce the same code is only really there to help the skinner, when it's all loaded by XBMC each include gets written in full.
Posts: 17,418
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
590
Hitcher
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 17,418
Thanks for the explanation.
One more question - once said include is loaded I guess it will then stay in memory until XBMC is reloaded.