[Rets-dev] Re: RE: RE: FW: .NET implementation with RETS...(originally sent toDWoolley@eneightborhoods.com) (and previous code posting)

[dbt]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 04:16:32PM -0500, mhb1 at se-tel.com wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I am storing my URIs as strings since I thought this
> would give me a performance gain as far as memory space is concerned so I
> don't have extra objects floating around...is there a compelling reason I
> should use the URI class store all of my URIs? I could not find one, but
> if there is a convincing reason why I should, I will re-write this
> portion.

The convincing reason is that the URI class will respond properly under
RFC 2396 and reinventing that wheel is means fixing a lot of unnecessary
bugs... I don't think the memory hit of a dozen Uri objects is anything
worth worrying about compared to the cost of parsing xml metadata.