W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: ActiveNodeSet/StaticNodeSet alternative

From: James Melton <james.melton@cylogix.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:44:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3B44D194.6035F72F@cylogix.com>
To: www-dom@w3.org
These seem to me like distinctly different use cases as previously
indicated. Under what circumstances might an application start with one
of these and subsequently migrate to the other? 

Jim.

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> > 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

-- 

____________________________________________________________
James Melton                 CyLogix
609.750.5190                 609.750.5100
james.melton@cylogix.com     www.cylogix.com
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 16:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:49 GMT