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

Re: Object ownership?

From: Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:42:00 -0400
Message-Id: <98May26.223916edt.26881@thicket.arbortext.com>
To: www-dom@w3.org
At 08:21 PM 5/26/98 -0400, Don Robertson wrote:
>Is there any policy on object ownership for languages like C++ which do
>not have native reference counting support, or are the objects expected
>to be reference counted?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking, but here's the
semi-official, current (as far as I know) DOM position on memory management:

>A. The DOM specification does not define any methods related to memory
>management (such as to release an object). This is because while the DOM
>is a programming language independent API, the way one deals with memory
>is very language specific. Therefore any method related to memory
>management, that is required by a particular language, needs to be
>specified in that language binding. Due to the way memory is managed in
>Java and ECMAScript, none of the bindings included in the DOM
>specification have such methods.

By extension to the question of object ownership, this MAY be an issue that
those devising a COM or C++ language binding for the DOM will have to
address. Basically, the DOM WG itself won't be defining those language
bindings (except to the extent that one can generate a C++ binding from the
CORBA IDL); As I understand it, Microsoft will be submitting a COM IDL
binding to the W3C at some point, and some organization could presumably do
the same for "raw" C++.  Basically this is a loose end that the DOM spec
itself will not address, but hopefully people of good will will coordinate
to define other language bindings that define language-specific DOM
extensions in a "standard" way.

>The spec could be read to imply that Node insertion passes ownership to
>the containing node and removal/replacement returns ownership to the
>caller. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

That might be a reasonable approach, but I know that *I* never wrote
anything into the spec with this thought in mind.  Can you point to a
particular bit of the spec that needs clarifying?

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 1998 22:43:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:04 UTC