- From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>
- Date: 03 Nov 1998 12:11:07 -0800
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
keshlam@us.ibm.com writes: > >either it is being traversed or it is being edited, but not both at once > > Apologies for the shorthand. Obviously accessors would have to be held off > while edits are in progress and vice versa (at least when they're in the > same area of the DOM tree), as well as edits versus edits. The trick is > reducing the granularity of locking, and trying to allow simultaneous > non-editing access, so performance impacts are minimized. There is no way to make locking local in the presence of live NodeLists and of iterators that are ``robust'' over arbitrary changes in the tree. I would like to see _some_ variant of the DOM that does _not_ require locking, caching, lazy evaluation, and all the other machinery that is required by Level 1. To put it another way, I would like to see a specification that specifies the INTERFACES, BUT NOT THE BEHAVIOR, because it doesn't seem possible for the people developing the DOM to avoid specifying behaviors that have massive non-local effects that render it all but impossible to implement correctly, and totally impossible to implement efficiently. -- Stephen R. Savitzky Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc., <steve@rsv.ricoh.com> California Research Center voice: 650.496.5710 fax: 650.854.8740 URL: http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/ home: <steve@starport.com> URL: http://www.starport.com/people/steve/
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 15:05:48 UTC