Hi Brian,
We already have a lazy implementation for that, but I worry about bloating
the size of elements if we decide to add it, since it means 4 or 8 extra
bytes per Element for an interface we don't use internally. Is it
something you can layer on top of our implementation, or is that too
awkward?
Dave
Brian Quinlan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
com> cc: (bcc: David N
Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: RE: Should all of the
unimplemented DOM functions throw exceptions?
02/25/2003 11:35
AM
Please respond
to xalan-dev
> Actually, I would expect that one to be implemented, eventually... But
I
> agree that deliberately unsupported/deferred functions should probably
> fail in a diagnostically meaningful manner.
A very useful implementation for me would be
XalanSourceTreeElement::getChildNodes.
If I wrote a lazy implementation for that method and an implementation
for XalanNodeList (i.e. XalanSourceTreeNodeList), would accepting a
patch be considered before the release of Xalan 1.5? I could probably
implement it in the next day or so.
Cheers,
Brian
RE: Should all of the unimplemented DOM functions throw exceptions?
David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:07:03 -0800
- Summary of XalanJ work (long!) ilene
- Re: Summary of XalanJ work (long!) zongaro
- Should all of the unimplemented DOM... Brian Quinlan
- Re: Should all of the unimpleme... David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM
- Re: Should all of the unimpleme... Joseph Kesselman
- RE: Should all of the unimp... Brian Quinlan
- RE: Should all of the ... David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM
- RE: Should all of ... Brian Quinlan
- RE: Should all... David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM
- Re: Summary of XalanJ work (long!) Santiago Pericas-Geertsen
