- 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