Hi Dogacan, I'm wondering if you have done some works on this subject. Could you confirm ? Do you want me to work on it and provide a patch ?
> On 8/2/07, Emmanuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've got a simple question why do we normalize each single outlink int >> he >> constructor of the object. It involved the creation of many >> URLNormalizer >> object. >> >> We could just add the normalizer in ParseOutputFormat just before the >> filter >> and it will limited the number of instanciation. >> Don't u think ? or did i miss something ? >> > > > I am not sure, but I think the idea is to make Outlink class useful > outside of ParseOutputformat (so that if you use Outlink w/o > ParseOutputFormat, you would still end up with a normalized url). > > However, this minor advantage is hugely offset by the fact that we are > recreating URLNormalizers for every outlink (and if you have an > ordering on your normalizers, re-ordering them *every* *single* time), > so overall moving normalizing into ParseOutputFormat seems like a good > idea to me. (and while we are doing that, perhaps we can stop creating > a ParseUtil instance for every ParseSegment.map [even though it has a > smaller overhead]). > > -- > Doğacan Güney >
