> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Brian Geffon <bri...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thomas, I somewhat agree: my guess would be the additional regexes would > likely cancel any performance gain there. > > Does anyone else have feedback or comments?
The other argument for this is that with separate regexes, you don't have to create the full URL string representation. I don't know if the core has any optimizations here, but for a plugin that is an expensive operation. With separate regexes for host and path, this is a non-issue. Maybe you can do separate regexes but let expansions cross over? $h[1] for a host group etc. Pros and cons :) -- Leif > > Brian > >> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Thomas Jackson <jacksontj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Another consideration for having >1 regex (which may or may not be >> premature optimization) is that if you have seperate regexes we can create >> hash maps similar to how maps work (a hashmap of domain_regex -> list of >> path regexes) which would make overall remap performance faster/better. >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Brian Geffon >> <bri...@apache.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bri...@apache.org');> >>> wrote: >> >>> Right. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Leif Hedstrom >>> <zw...@apache.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','zw...@apache.org');>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Brian Geffon <briangef...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What Thomas called Question #1 -- 1 Regex. >>>> >>>> Makes sense to have them combined. Assuming groups etc. works, that >>>> allows you to do e.g. >>>> >>>> regex_map http://(.*)\.ogre\.com/([^/]+)/(.*) http://$2/$1/$3 >>>> >>>> >>>> or some such. i.e. take parts from the path match and use as the host, >>>> and vice versa. Right? :) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> -- Leif >>
