W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Implementing NodeList

From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@eps.inso.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:37:30 -0700
To: "Stephen R. Savitzky" <steve@crc.ricoh.com>, "Mike Champion" <mcc@arbortext.com>
Cc: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801bdba56$c6d259b0$577670c6@endymion.eps.inso.com>
> I'll stand by my original statement.  For example, consider a document
> derived in the obvious fashion from a table in a relational database.  A
> node with several million children is not unreasonable to expect.  If the
> document is ``live'', the implementor might have to query the database and
> obtain the entire table at each iteration.
> It might not be obvious now, but people are going to be using the
> DOM for a lot of things besides hacking flashy effects into a document in
> > Nevertheless, the real answer -- as I think you said last time
> -- is to put interators back in the spec for Level 2.
> You're right there, but even iterators don't help if they are
> required to be ``live'' and constantly reflecting the current structure of
the tree.
> Sometimes that interpretation is the correct one, sometimes it isn't, and
> either the determination should be left to the implementor, or
> two different
> subclasses of iterators should be specified.

Inso often deals with document exceeding 10MB, and in fact, it is very
common for us
to deal with 100MB+ documents.

I can tell you that I was one of the people screaming very loadly about

That said, I think the easiest way to take care of liveness is to add a
mechanism in level two. That way, you can *preclude* people from messing
the tree when you don't want them to: just build the tree, lock it, and then
liveness is a non-issue.
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 11:38:40 UTC

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