Victor Mote wrote:

> Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> > I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its
> > building. fo
> > tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a
> > DOM, it's just
> > tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an
> > effectively small
> > structure like saxon's internal tree. But any interim buffers should be
> > avoided as much as it's possible (well, Piter's buffer seems not
> > to be a burden).
> This is probably a philosophical difference. It seems to me that the area
> tree is built on the foundation of the fo tree, and that if we only get a
> brief glimpse of the fo tree as it goes by, not only does our foundation
> disappear, but we end up putting all of that weight into the
> superstructure,
> which tends to make the whole thing collapse.


After thinking about this a bit more, I think I confused this issue. I think
what you were saying is that the existing FOP FO tree /is/ the lightweight
data structure that you like. I see your point, and yes I agree, there is no
need to replace it with something heavier. My train of thought was in a
different direction -- ie. how to get that structure written to disk when
necessary so that it doesn't all have to be in memory. I (think I) also had
a wrong conception of how long the FO tree data persisted. My apologies for
the confusion.

Victor Mote

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to