W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Hello and NodeIterator Revisited

From: Don Park <donpark@quake.net>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:43:13 -0700
Message-ID: <001b01bd7563$4bd2f310$2ee044c6@arcot-main>
To: "www-dom" <www-dom@w3.org>
Peter,

>I don't think you are going to get much sympathy with that kind of
argument.
>You might not be aware that several of the companies represented on the DOM
>WG have had implementations similar to the DOM for years. We have plenty of
>scars and we have not put anything into the DOM that we believe it would be
>difficult to adapt our implementations to support.

My argument was from the point of view a Java-based DOM implementor.  If I
was using C++, I would not be so uptight about having to instantiate two to
three objects for each node.  The fact is I have committed myself to
supporting SAXDOM which is written in Java.  While most people are
interested in DOM as a scripting interface at the client, my particular
interest lies in using DOM on the server-side.  This is why I have concerns
about implementing DOM efficiently.

>Having said that, I don't think that any of us have actually implemented
this
>in Java, although there certainly is lots of Java experience in the WG. So
if
>there are particular requirements for that language that we are not aware
of,
>then we would very much like to hear about them.

I think there is a clear problem in trying to target DOM at both general
programming languages as well as scripting languages.  ECMAScript offers a
lot of handy member access constructs which are not available in languages
like Java.  My position is that DOM for scripting languages should be
separate from DOM for general programming languages.

>Instead of us implementing iterators in Java to prove your point for you,
why
>don't you imagine an efficient implementation in C++. If you can't do that
>then the language issue is unimportant and we can discuss implementations
in
>general. On the other hand, if you can but you can't find a way to move the
>implementation to Java and maintain efficiency then tell us why.

I have been programming C++ since the days of prototype C++ compilers and I
do not see any problem implementing the DOM in C++.  Java, on the other
hand, is more demanding IF efficiency is required.  I did not explain in
detail why the current DOM is hard to implement in Java because I felt that
the real problem was the lack of concern or understanding in the WG about
Java implemention of DOM.  As you pointed out, I also felt that none of the
WG members have actually implemented DOM in Java.  The fact that the Java
interface files that came with the latest spec could not even be compiled
filled me with even more despair.

I appologize if my previous message sounded pompous.  I forgot to take my
anti-attitude medications.

Best wishes,

Don Park
http://www.docuverse.com/personal/index.html
Received on Friday, 1 May 1998 20:50:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:45 GMT