- From: Claude Zervas <czervas@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:54:33 -0700
- To: www-dom@w3.org
At 06:20 PM 9/25/98 -0400, keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: >>> The standard kluge-around for almost tolerable efficiency seems to be to >>> have NodeList cache everything it finds, >>Is this really necessary, as opposed to just caching the current >>(i.e. last fetched) position? > >Depends on how you expect people to use this monstrosity, and how >inefficient you're willing to be if they insist on accessing nodes out of >order. > >>> refresh that cache if the tree structure has changed >>This is the really expensive item, I think. Does anyone have a >>quick'n'dirty way of doing this? > >... check its recorded count >against the actual count ... etc When the DOM becomes thread-safe in Level 2 (which I assume is a goal) most of these NodeList cursor cacheing techniques will probably fail. (At least in the case of two threads traversing the same NodeList). It would be a good idea for the WG to release a interim iterator spec before Level 2 so that implementors/users who need them will all be on the same page and not have to wait another year for the complete level 2 draft. - Claude Zervas
Received on Friday, 25 September 1998 16:54:36 UTC