Re: [Tm4j-developers] Improving development environment for TM4J

[Lars M. G. <la...@ga...>]

* Kal Ahmed
>
> Finally on Locators, the logic behind the Locator structure in the =20
> original TM4J was that it should be possible to support a wider =20
> range of locator syntaxes than URI/URL syntax. In practice, URIs (or =20=

> maybe IRIs) have won and the Locator class is probably something of =20=

> an anachronism =96 a simple Unicode character sequence (backed up with =
=20
> the library functions for parsing and handling those strings as =20
> URIs) should work for a =93new=94 topic map engine.

A word of caution here: URI processing is quite complex, and in Topic =20=

Maps import it's also performance-critical. Small changes to how URIs =20=

are processed can mean a huge difference in the time needed to load an =20=

XTM file. This may sound strange until you stop to consider just how =20
many URIs there are in an XTM file.

The built-in Java classes for URIs have quite a few issues in this =20
regard, and so you may want to consider keeping some sort of interface =20=

in front here in order to give yourself latitude to make this efficient.

--Lars M.=