I did a little testing of << against my own application and found an incompatibility.
<< now copies a node/tree before adding it to another. I had code that added the node to a tree and then modified the node. This modified the original and not the copy in the parented tree. I don't see this as a problem, and the ruby code (in my app) seemed kinda dumb to do it that way. There may be a way to modify the behavior, and I wanted to know if it makes sense to do so: When a node/tree is parented and it is the top node (no other parent) and not part of a doc, then it can be installed in place without copying, and the original node is modified as it is now a child. If it is an intermediate node, then it is always copied. --or-- since this is variable behavior that may not be obvious, maybe we disallow (raise) << for nodes that are part of other trees? This may break even more things though. The copy feature when a node is a non-doc root, could be made optional. Either way the behavior changes. Should there be a warning? Dan On Sep 4, 2007, at 09:04, Dan Janowski wrote: > Aah, the << operator. I make a note in the code when I reviewed it > that there was something amiss. I have fixed it and checked it into > (the MEM2 branch). The copy_bug.rb and copy_bug2.rb are moved in to > rwtests and will run as part of 'rake memtests'. They clear now. > There was an issue in copy_bug2.rb in the xpath find that did not > yield the hoped result, so I modified it to find the aaa nodes. > > Do an svn update on the MEM2 branch to try it (not released). > > Dan > > On Sep 3, 2007, at 12:24, Ross Bamford wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:53:52 +0100, Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> Ross, >>> >>> Try this again with the patch release just announced. >>> >>> Dan >>> >> >> Still seeing exactly the same problem. Can anyone else confirm this? >> Anyway, let me know if you need more information. >> >> Cheers, >> Ross >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 31, 2007, at 08:54, Ross Bamford wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:41:16 +0100, Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> libxml at rubyforge (http://rubyforge.org/projects/libxml/) now >>>>> has a >>>>> packaged development release from the MEM2 branch (New Memory >>>>> Model) >>>>> http://rubyforge.org/frs/shownotes.php?release_id=14118 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Very cool, Dan! :) >>>> >>>> On my box though, it seems to break the previous bug tests - both >>>> tests/copy_bug.rb and tests/copy_bug2.rb bomb out with a doublefree >>>> error. >>>> FYI this is compiled from the gem, with GCC 4.1.1 (Red Hat >>>> 4.1.1-1). I >>>> included a trace below. Also, running in valgrind shows rather a >>>> lot of >>>> memory errors (but no leaks, so looking good there!) >>>> >> >> -- >> Ross Bamford - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> _______________________________________________ >> libxml-devel mailing list >> libxml-devel@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel > > _______________________________________________ > libxml-devel mailing list > libxml-devel@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
