Re: .* was Re: FSL2 feed?

• To: Tom McDermott <tmcderm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: .* was Re: FSL2 feed?
• From: Jeff Weber <jweber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:46:58 -0600 (MDT)

Tom,

You are correct...

Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Weber                                    jweber@xxxxxxxx        :
Unidata Program Center                        PH:303-497-8676        :
University Corp for Atmospheric Research      3300 Mitchell Ln       :
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/jweber      Boulder,Co 80307-3000  :
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Tom McDermott wrote:

>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, David Knight wrote:
>
> >      I thought  .*  by itself was OK on a request line.
> > It was only when the .* is followed by something
> > (i.e. .*\.windprofiler) that caused performance problems.
>
> This was my understanding as well.  Please clarify.
>
>
> > (instead of requesting for example .*\.windprofiler
> > we should instead request \.windprofiler which should
> > yield the same result)
> > Is this not correct?
> > Thanks for clearing this up for me. On some feeds we do request
> > .* and I want to make sure we're not making inefficient requests...
>
> I'm sure most REQUEST lines are for ".*", so if it really is inefficient
> to use ".*" alone, we need to know what pattern to use for each feed
> instead.
>
> Tom
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom McDermott                         Email: tmcderm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Systems Administrator                 Phone: (585) 395-5718
> Earth Sciences Dept.                  Fax: (585) 395-2416
> SUNY College at Brockport
>
>

• References:
  • Re: .* was Re: FSL2 feed?
    • From: Tom McDermott