All right, I will open a Jira for that and send a patch.
> Hi, > > On 8/31/07, Emmanuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 ? > > I haven't worked on it, so feel free to work on it and open a JIRA issue. > > Btw, I was wrong in my earlier post (We don't re-order normalizers > again and again), but still, not instantiating a new object can be a > big win. > >> >> >> > 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]). >> > >> > -- >> > DoÄŸacan Güney >> > >> > > > -- > Doğacan Güney >
