- From: Andrew n marshall <amarshal@usc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:23:41 -0700
- To: "Peter Sharpe" <peter@sqwest.bc.ca>, <www-dom@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Sharpe > Subject: RE: Alternative to the Live NodeIterator > . . . > I still think we are OK for ECMAScript and COM for the reason I mentioned > above: the reference from the list will not be known to the scripting > language or the COM interface so garbage collecting or reference counting > will work. The problem comes in the Java bindings. I have no good solution > in that case. You can implement your own memory management at the expense > of interoperability, I guess. How does ECMAScript deal with this? It is my understanding that it is a problem with implicit garbage collection. My naive understanding of ECMAScript is that there is no equivalent of the C++ delete on objects, only properties. Therefore ECMAScript has the same problem. In addition, a solution in C++ requires the NodeIterator's desctructor to do the detachment from the tree implies that the DOM user will delete the NodeIterator. Of course these aren't unusual expectations in C++. > Can you Java experts not find some other way out of this dilemma? I don't > believe Andrew Marshall's suggestion of adding a property set to Node > solves the problem. My previous proposal had more to the usefulness of NodeIterators being live. Given what has been said about the need for progressively processing the document, I believe this aspect of my proposal is mute. Any alternative benefits remain legitimate, although nonessential. Andrew n marshall student - artist - programmer http://www.media-electronica.com/anm-bin/anm "Everyone a mentor, Everyone a pupil"
Received on Friday, 1 May 1998 18:19:45 UTC