Does anyone care about sort order? The order that the host names come out in the proposed code is going to be very random. Part of the reasoning behind getting the keys was to ensure the elements came back sorted in order.
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]
