grouper-dev - RE: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior
Subject: Grouper Developers Forum
List archive
RE: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior
Chronological Thread
- From: Chris Hyzer <>
- To: "Michael R. Gettes" <>, Grouper Dev <>, Signet <>
- Subject: RE: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:32:31 -0400
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
> And, KH, I see you still like the idea of regex and I believe that is
> overkill as well - why do we need it? When I consider the many
> hundreds of thousands of operations we are considering for reasonable
> sized enterprise deployments - regex processing starts to mount up
> when you profile the code. Of course, I should be basing my concern
> on facts and they are obviously absent, I apologize. But, from my
> own experiences, regex processing *can* be expensive when done
> way too often - and I think this would be one of those cases.
About regex performance, I have never had a problem, (especially since we
have to wait for db and ldap io). This benchmark says that you can do 10k
java regexes in 609ms, and the regex looks pretty complex.
http://www.tusker.org/regex/regex_benchmark.html
Remember to keep your regex Pattern objects cached so the expressions aren't
recompiled each time. The book "Java Performance Tuning" agrees, and states
that regex is not expensive. In a benchmark there it says that a regex is
only a little slower than a toUpper and compare... I think regex can be
useful, as long as whoever is configuring can figure them out. :) Maybe to
mitigate the complexity, just put a comment above the config:
#to do a prefix in regex, e.g. starts with 'somePrefix', use something like:
^somePrefix.*$
Also, we already have regex in the grouper config, and I have been assuming
they are fair game...
Chris
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, (continued)
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Kathryn Huxtable, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/13/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Kathryn Huxtable, 08/13/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Graham Seaman, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, GW Brown, Information Systems and Computing, 08/20/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Kathryn Huxtable, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/13/2008
- RE: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Chris Hyzer, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/11/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Kathryn Huxtable, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Michael R. Gettes, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Graham Seaman, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Kathryn Huxtable, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Graham Seaman, 08/14/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior, Tom Barton, 08/14/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.