Peter, I have no feeling one way or the other on synchronizing the getHosts() call. Since there was very little synchronization in the original code, I didn't do any in the new code.
I have never used junit, so I'm not sure I'm a good candidate for putting the test harness code into it. Sorry... George Sexton MH Software, Inc. http://www.mhsoftware.com/ Voice: 303 438 9585 > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Rossbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:28 PM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: Code Submission - Wild Card Aliases > > Hey Geroge, > > I review the mapper patch. Cool! > > I think getHosts is a little bit strange: > > What you think about this: > > public String[] getHosts() { > Host[] hosts ; > synchronized(this) { > hosts=new Host[hmHosts.size()]; > hosts=(Host[])hmHosts.values().toArray(hosts); > } > String[] hostNames=new String[hmHosts.size()]; > for ( int i = 0; i < hosts.length; i++ ) { > hostNames[i] = hosts[i].name; > } > return hostNames ; > } > > I thing sync is needed. I miss that also at orginal mapper. The host > values "get array" you also coded at getContextNames(). > Can we change getHost to be protected. > > Have you wrote junit testcases for the Mapper ? > Please, extract the testcode. I hate those test code inside > production code :-) > > I find you patch very usefull! > > Thanks > Peter > > George Sexton schrieb: > > >I have completed the coding in o.a.t.u.http.mapper.Mapper to > implement > >wild-card aliases. > > > >If a request for a host is made, and that host is not found, > the code tests > >the host and aliases list and looks for wild-cards. > > > >So, a host name of www.mydomain.com would match an alias of > *.mydomain.com. > >This additional level of testing is only done if the the > presented host name > >is not found in the standard host list. Once a host is found > via wild-card, > >it is added to the standard host list. Subsequent requests > for that host > >name will find it via the standard search mechanism. > > > >As part of the conversion, I re-worked the test harness code > and expanded it > >to be a lot more complete. The output of the new test > harness with the > >unmodified Mapper code matches identically the output of the modified > >mapper. IOW, I'm 99% confident that the behavior of the > Mapper matches the > >old Mapper. > > > >The time differential between the two runs is around 500ms > over 1 million > >iterations. I.E. the original code runs in 8000 ms for 1 > million iterations > >of the testing code, while the new code takes 8500ms. The > new code adds > >approximately 0.05 % to the time for a lookup. > > > >I am running the modified mapper code with 5.5.9 on an > installation that has > >40 hosts configured and it seems to be working correctly. > > > >I'd really appreciate it if a committer would get this added > to the source > >tree. > > > >The complete modified Mapper.java file can be downloaded from: > > > >http://www.mhsoftware.com/~gsexton/Mapper.java > > > >If a decision is made to reject this patch, I'd appreciate > knowing why. If > >there's something wrong from a coding or style perspective, > I'd be happy to > >fix things. > > > > > >George Sexton > >MH Software, Inc. > >http://www.mhsoftware.com/ > >Voice: 303 438 9585 > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
