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

RE: NamedNodeMap

From: Allen, Michael B (RSCH) <Michael_B_Allen@ml.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:56:42 -0400
Message-ID: <B27EB33BAB29D2119ABF0001FA7EF289053BF069@ewfd04.exchange.ml.com>
To: "'Joseph Kesselman'" <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, www-dom@w3c.org
I don't think Memory Management would be an issue. In your destroyNode function you remove the list of NodeLists and if it's not NULL remove the entry from each . Then free the node per usual.

I'm not really sure what you mean by object lifetime issues though. Do you mean their liftimes would be so short that all the extra machinery becomes silly? I agree, but I see no alternative.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Joseph Kesselman [SMTP:keshlam@us.ibm.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:48 PM
> To:	www-dom@w3c.org
> Subject:	RE: NamedNodeMap
> >The only way to implement this functionality verbatium that I can see
> would >be to have an active NodeLists table for each Node.
> Think about memory management and object lifetime issues before you go that
> route.
> ______________________________________
> Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 16:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:08 UTC