Re: ActiveNodeSet/StaticNodeSet alternative from David Brownell on 2001-07-05 (www-dom@w3.org from July to September 2001)

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:29:11 -0700
To: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, Arnold Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <117b01c10591$27558f40$6800000a@brownell.org>

> I think you missed the point of ActiveNodeSet and StaticNodeSet.  It is
> not so that the application writer can decide which one he thinks would be
> quicker, but rather so that he can decide which one he can deal with,
> since it was clear from several sources that each is a use case.

Why not?  It's easy enough to define a base interface so that the
sharable operations can be shared.  Not all users expect to be
mutating the tree; why pessimize those other use cases?

Sounds like what's been achieved is "must decide" (early),
not "can decide" (later, if it's important).

- Dave

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 16:30:08 UTC