[GSoC] IUri Implementations

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 3/31/2010 02:57, Thomas Mullaly wrote:

> Hi, my name is Thomas Mullaly and I am a undergraduate in the Computer 
> Science department at Kent State University and I would very much like 
> to participate in this years GSoC. I saw under your project ideas page 
> that the IUri API still needs implemented and I thought that this 
> would be a good project for me, but, before I submit a proposal on it 
> I have a few questions about the project itself.
Hi, Thomas, and welcome.
>
> Firstly, on the project page it says that the main goal is to have the 
> IUri interface and CreateUri function implemented, but, on MSDN they 
> also have functions and interfaces for creating/manipulating 
> IUriBuilder's and I was wondering if these were also part of the 
> project goals. If not can they be or would this be to ambitious to 
> have finished by the end of the summer.
Right, a complete IUri with corresponding tests will be enough for a 
summer project I think. After a brief look at IUriBuilder I think it 
doesn't depend on a IUri implementation details so much. For IUriBuilder 
one way I see is to track changed properties and store only new data, 
using unchanged properties from supplied IUri, but this needs some tests 
(does it keep reference for IUri for example or not).
>
>
> Secondly (more of a design question), I see that the Uri structure and 
> functions are already stubbed out in the "dlls/urlmon/uri.c" file and 
> I was thinking for my implementation I would add another BSTR* member 
> to the Uri struct, which will point to the encoded version of the URI 
> (which will be generated during the CreateUri() call). Since most of 
> the functions that interact with the IUri return components of the URI 
> (e.g. scheme, host, query, etc.) I was thinking about adding more data 
> members to the Uri struct which store the location in the encoded Uri 
> string where each component exists (or -1 if it does not exist) and by 
> doing this the runtimes of the IUri functions will be reduced since 
> the function will already know where to look inside the encoded string 
> for the component it needs. A drawback to this design is that each Uri 
> struct will be bloated with a decent amount of ints which may or may 
> not be used depending on the type of the URI that the IUri represents. 
> The second approach I was thinking of is to not store any locations 
> inside the Uri struct and to compute them on the fly every time the 
> IUri is queried for one of its components, this would result in a 
> smaller memory footprint of the Uri structure but will increase the 
> runtimes of all the functions that access the URI. I was wondering if 
> anyone might have suggestions for which way they think might be better.
You could use dynamic array for that or a list with a Uri_PROPERTY value 
as a key for example and a data as an offset and length. Another way is 
to compute each property offset only when it's requested and store it. 
An obvious bad case for that is a long uri. So probably one pass 
property computation while building IUri instance is not bad.

Waiting for Jacek comments.
>
> Any input will be greatly appreciated!
>
>
> -Thomas Mullaly
>
>
>