[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/10/2007 04:35:38 PM: > >Is the current stance a matter of principle (you don't believe the > Xerces DOM should ever be made >thread-safe for read) or a practical > constraint due to limited resources (you'd like the Xerces DOM to be > >thread-safe, but other issues/enhancements have higher priority)? > > My stance: I don't believe the Xerces DOM should be made thread-safe > for read at the cost of making it slower, since most folks don't > need that feature and there are other (and usually better) ways to > achieve the same result. That's either a principled matter of > practicality, or a practical matter of principle, take your pick.
... and even if it could be made thread-safe without making it slower I think it's unlikely to happen for the same reasons for many things that don't happen in open source projects: limited resources which don't have enough interest (possibly in part because the community doesn't have enough interest) and/or time and/or capability to do the work. > ______________________________________ > "... Three things see no end: A loop with exit code done wrong, > A semaphore untested, And the change that comes along. ..." > -- "Threes" Rev 1.1 - Duane Elms / Leslie Fish (http://www.ovff. > org/pegasus/songs/threes-rev-11.html) Thanks. Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
