QUrl vs KURL - here's some benchmark results for you

[David Faure]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:46, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> QUrl in Qt 4 is pretty fast compared to KURL.

I never had any doubts about that. My concern is more for correctness - not in
terms of the RFC, but in terms of the web. KURL has special code for 
preserving encoding used by websites (Waldo? Can you give more details on this?).
It also handles absolute-or-relative URLs (the two arguments constructor), but that's
possibly something we can add on top (making KURL derive from QUrl).
QUrl might also refuse to parse some urls that KURL parses (or vice versa),
which would also lead to problems on websites [KDE code is easy to fix,
websites we can't fix ;)].

Any other kind of missing API we can add there; but the encoding thing or
parsing differences could be a problem.

Anyhow, if nobody else does, I'll try to find some time to port kurltest to a 
KURL-on-top-of-QUrl to test QUrl from a KDE point of view.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).