[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-93?page=comments#action_12433818 ] Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-93: -------------------------------------------
Have we decided that we will not try and be compatible with Trac and expect people using mod_python 3.3 to use the next unreleased version of Trac? This next version of Trac works via a WSGI gateway and thus doesn't use FieldStorage and thus doesn't have the problems seen here. Can we mark the original issue as resolved for 3.3? > Improve util.FieldStorage efficiency > ------------------------------------ > > Key: MODPYTHON-93 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-93 > Project: mod_python > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core > Affects Versions: 3.2.7 > Reporter: Jim Gallacher > Assigned To: Jim Gallacher > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 3.3 > > Attachments: modpython325_util_py_dict.patch > > > Form fields are saved as a list in a FieldStorage class instance. The class > implements a __getitem__ method to provide dict-like behaviour. This method > iterates over the complete list for every call to __getitem__. Applications > that need to access all the fields when processing the form will show O(n^2) > behaviour where n == the number of form fields. This overhead could be > avoided by creating a dict (to use as an index) when the FieldStorage > instance is created. > Mike Looijmans has been investigating StringField and Field as well. It is > probably reasonable to include information on his work in this issue as well, > so that we can consider all of these efficiency issues in toto. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
