Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML Dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:21:03 -0500
Miles Sabin wrote:
> OK, I agree that this check is O(1). However, that's only
> because the granularity of the check is so coarse: a single
> document-level timestamp will cause a lot of unnecessary
> invalidation ...
Agreed. But this isn't so important if there are few active
iterators (= iterators that will ever be resumed), which was my
> I suspect that it would make the performance
> of modifying a document via iterators unacceptably poor.
Here I think the JDK 1.2 java.util.Iterator class is useful: it has
a "remove" method which removes the last element iterated to
in a safe way, or raises an exception if the underlying
container is read-only.
> Moving to per-node timestamps would reduce the amount of
> unnecessary invalidation, and preserve the O(1) check,
> but at the cost of making tree modifications O(log n).
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)