- From: Don Park <donpark@quake.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:48:39 -0700
- To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Craig, >Urk, I'm scared by the prospect of memory mgmt issues perculating up >into the DOM API. Is it really impossible to implement it without >unused NoteIterators piling up? Is it also really neccesarry to keep >track of NodeIterators in the Node? I think that keeping that state >in the Node is kinda asking for trouble anyways. It greatly >complicates the behavior of the Node, and makes it difficult for me to >create my own Node classes because now I have to deal with the >Iterator implementations of each DOM implementation since they are >tied to the Node, and that interface has been left up to the >implementor. Am I making sense here? I can give a more detailed >explanation of my concerns if I hadn't made them clear yet. You are making as much sense to me as a green lieutenant telling a battle-proven sergeant how to make war in the middle of a battle. No offense to the lieutenant. >I think that Itertors should maintain as little state as possible, and >that that state should be maintained in one place. You certainly >don't want to spread the state of an Iterator across multiple >classes. The only thing that I see making this difficult is the >deletion of the current object. What current object? There is no current object in the spec. >> 1. Please add 'release' method to NodeIterator. > >Memory/Storage Mgmt. in this API would be an incredible mistake. Please show me where the mistake is in detail. It would even more helpful if you could show me a way to implement all the requirements of DOM in Java without using 'release'. >> 2. Please move indexing operations from NodeIterator to Node. > >What do you mean by indexing routines? NodeIterator.getLength NodeIterator.getCurrentPos NodeIterator.moveTo Regards, Don Park http://www.docuverse.com/personal/index.html > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 15:55:41 UTC