[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: java.net.URI implementation
From: |
Per Bothner |
Subject: |
Re: java.net.URI implementation |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:47:25 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 |
Giannis Georgalis wrote:
The generated scanner is not big (about 300 loc).
A more interesting measure is .class file size.
As you note, generated scanners are faster because they save a lot of
function calls, have lookup tables,
Lookup tables are difficult when using Unicode - a simple
one-element-per-character table is too wasteful, at least
for a non-critical helper class like URI.
and as far as I remember they
work like FSMs (finite state machines).
That does not say anything about the implementation.
A hand-written scanner is also a FSM.
Additionally don't forget
that the URI objects are immutable. That means that as soon as the
parsing is complete, the parser object is *dead*.
But you still have to allocate the parser object(s), which a
hand-written parser doesn't have to. And object allocation
is relatively expensive, in the context of parsing a URI.
--
--Per Bothner
address@hidden http://www.bothner.com/per/
- java.net.URI implementation, Giannis Georgalis, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Brian Jones, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Giannis Georgalis, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Per Bothner, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Giannis Georgalis, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation,
Per Bothner <=
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Giannis Georgalis, 2003/02/10
- Re: java.net.URI implementation, Per Bothner, 2003/02/10
Re: java.net.URI implementation, Stephen Crawley, 2003/02/10
Re: java.net.URI implementation, Dalibor Topic, 2003/02/10