> Adrian Sutton wrote: >> I've recently been doing some profiling work and was surprised to discover >> that instantiating HttpClient is actually a reasonably expensive operation. > > Sounds interesting! Do you know what the reason is? Where is all that > time spent? I mean, HttpClient doesn't do that much. I rather ties > together some configuration and state.
I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to it actually because while it's smack bang on the critical path for our load time it's only there for the first instance of the applet that loads so speeding it up only helps the first load. I believe a large part of it is that the first reference to HttpClient causes a lot of classes to be loaded (I profile using an application version of our product so there's no network overhead for class loading), but I would have to play some more with the profiler to see exactly what it is. I've been wanting to profile HttpClient carefully for quite a while but with 3 products being released in a month of each other I'm a little bit frazzled at the moment. I always appreciate being pestered about these things so if you're interested in me doing up some optimization patches for HttpClient do keep pestering me or I'll just forget. Speaking of things I've been meaning to do for ages, I can confirm that NTLM proxy authentication works correctly in the 2.0 branch - I have a log I could send you but I can't tell you the password because I had to use a real account on our domain. Setting up a dummy password is back on my list of things to do... Regards, Adrian Sutton. ---------------------------------------------- Intencha "tomorrow's technology today" Ph: 38478913 0422236329 Suite 8/29 Oatland Crescent Holland Park West 4121 Australia QLD www.intencha.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
