- From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:24:46 -0600
- To: "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'" <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
- Cc: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
Follow up to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001Apr/0030.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001Apr/0032.html This may probably be something right for the DOM mailing list, a DOM implementation that consistently returns the same object for the same underlying node allows you to use that object to synchronize code that accesses that node. For example, something like: for(int i = 0; i < children.getLength(); i++) { child = children.item(i); synchronized(child) { // // do something unsafe } } Would work as intended if the same node is returned, but would not block if independent objects were returned for the same node. Does (or should) DOM 3 address this by adding a getMutex() or similar method, something like: for(int i = 0; i < children.getLength(); i++) { child = children.item(i); synchronized(child.getMutex()) { // // do something unsafe } } Where an existing implementation that had a one-to-one correspondance between nodes and objects could just return "this" for getMutex(). > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Kesselman [mailto:keshlam@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:03 PM > To: Fred L. Drake, Jr. > Cc: Arnold, Curt; 'www-dom-ts@w3.org' > Subject: Re: Node identity comparisons > > > > As far as the DOM API is concerned, Node identity does not > guarantee object > identity. Most existing DOM implementations behave that way, > but not all. > > Yes, this was an oversight. Oops. > > DOM Level 3 will address this by adding an isSameNode() operation to > directly test node identity. > > ______________________________________ > Joe Kesselman / IBM Research >
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 15:27:04 UTC