![]() I get paid to solve business problems using technology, not take up a religious position. ASP.NET (C# and VB.Net), Java, PHP, even a bit of Objective-C here and there. I use a LOT of different tools for both work and personal projects. Anyone who dishes on a “competitive” technology without even trying it doesn’t exactly have a lot of credibility IMO. By using it, however, the syntax for each jumplink would change but I believe this to be a good thing.Yeah – I find the bashing without experience a very disturbing trend. This improves processing time by quite a bit (haven't measured, but there is far less preg_* going on) and makes development somewhat easier. I may or may not have mentioned that I'd like the new Jumplinks to be powered by FastRoute. I'm making time as a go along, and would like to briefly discuss the current work taking place. Hi everyone, very sorry for the delays - as you may know, I've been too busy of late to attend to Jumplinks 2. ![]() That said, I'm sure I'll be getting back into it soon with some new sites in the pipeline. Unfortunately, I haven't been pyaing attention to the module of late - many other things on the plate at the moment. If you could do that for me, I'd be most grateful. Without saying much more, I would be very interested to see a Blackfire/XDebug dump of this - perhaps I may be able to look into the details and speed up the new module. The only thing I think could slow it down is the multiple regex routines that the module makes use of - there are quite a lot, if you have a look at the code. That said, it does seem a little strange that this is happening. Jumplinks wasn't built for large sites - in fact, it wasn't something that crossed my mind when building it. Thanks for the insight on this - this is the first I'm hearing of Jumplinks running on a large site. And also hoping a little that there's a solution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |