[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: RFC KURL rewite (1st STAGE)
From: weis <weis () stud ! uni-frankfurt ! de>
Date: 1999-10-09 18:31:56
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi,
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, weis wrote :
> > Hi,
>
> > while I consider it very useful to fix the shortcomings of
> > the current KURL, I would strongly suggest NOT to use
> > QRegExp! It is not very efficient!
> >
> > The current KURL and QUrl use state machines since they
> > are much more efficient than this QRegExp.
> >
> > In KDE and especially konqueror URLs are parsed in masses, so
> > parsing URLs is a time critical thing.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. My next step would have been to do some
> benchmark since I basically had the same concerns. I did see the use of the
> state machines in KURL.
>
> Perhaps I should have done that first before posting. A question though.
> Should all use of QRegExp be avoided ? I ask this because while converting the
> basic checks to a simple while loop is very trivial, the validation is not. As
> an example, look at the test for on the hostname which can only consist of
> alphanumeric & "-" values and they have to conform to a certain pattern.
>
> While we are on the performance topic, I saw a prevallant use of Qchar in the
> original code. Was this done for performance purposes as well ? Is invoking
>
> QString mid ( uint index, uint len=0xffffffff ) const
>
> more expensive than creating new Qstring object out of
>
> QString ( const QChar * unicode, uint length ) ?
That should be the same.
>
> [OFF TOPIC :] Would there be a possibility of having a Quri/Qurl class future
> versions of QT ?
>
Look at QUrl in the recent Qt CVS.
But they dont handle nested URLs like
tar:/path/file#file:/home/weis/x.tgz
Bye
Torben
> Regards,
> Dawit A.
>
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic