> However, be prepared for the outcome that your code may be rejected > and thrown away. In this case, the code is serving as a working > implementation of your proposal, and we still haven't been convinced > of your proposal. Just writing the code doesn't mean it will > automatically get accepted.
I'm fine with that. Would prefer to engage in some more detailed discussion before writing the code though. > > Are there any pre-existing benchmarks on the url resolution process? > > Looking in trunk/tests, I see > >http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/trunk/tests/regressionte... > > which looks to mostly be correctness tests, not performance tests. > > You are correct that there aren't any performance tests. The > performance test is not allowing O(2^n) algorithms into the > URLresolver in the first place :-) So presenting some performance benchmarks showing equal or better time with the current implementation, along with a complexity analysis that shows that it isn't an exponential time algorithm would help my case here? I'm pretty sure that the solution I outlined earlier in this thread differs from the current algorithm by only a constant factor, and had another idea for how to do this last night that I think my have lower algorithmic time complexity than what is in the 1.1 release. I'll write those up before writing my code and send them along. Cheers, Alex > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
