--- Tinny Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on all the discussion and votes above, here is > the count: > > Vote Question: > ============ > ==> Which INTERFACE should be the Xerces-C++ > public supported W3C DOM > Interface, DOM or IDOM? <=== > > Vote Count: > ========= > 14 people has joined the discussion, 3 of them > didn't cast a vote explicitly > so I didn't count them in, and the result is > > IDOM 9 votes where 2 of them vote with a > condition (provided that > memory retained issue can be fixed) > old DOM 2 votes > > Based on above votes result, here is my proposal: > > Since most users like IDOM interface, and in fact > the 2 votes for the old > DOM are suggesting to use IDOM interface internally > which sounds like just > another implementation of IDOM. > > So I would like to move on to post IDOM interface as > the Apache Recommended > C++ DOM Bindings for implementation and as the *RAW* > user interface. > > But to satisfy those who really like smart pointer > approach, the old DOM > will be kept as a viable alternative user interface > in addition to the > recommended "RAW" user interface. With Lenny's > patch, this old DOM is also > based on the IDOM interface and thus does not > "violate" our Apache C++ DOM > Bindings for implementation recommendation. The > old DOM interface will > not be deprecated, but will not be promoted as the > primary DOM user > interface. The samples will be removed, but the > programming guide will > remain and will be documented as a viable alterative > user interface for > particular users' preference. And for new > development (like DOM Level 3), > IDOM is the first priority. > > As for implementation detail, Lenny's patch against > the old DOM will be > reviewed and applied (provided the *RAW* IDOM > interface users are not > penalized by any performance degradation with this > patch, but even if it > does, we will then guard the code with build > variation) > > And for IDOM memory retained issue, we will review > all the alternatives to > see what's the best solution. Also if no one > objects, then we will go > ahead and rename IDOM_XXX to DOMXXX as well. > > Any comment with this approach? > > Tinny Excellent
I would have voted for IDOM as well, had I not been inundated with programming classwork (taking double time :) ). I don't have a lot of experience with IDOM, but I have to say that the lighter memory footprint is highly desirable in a server setting, and as many of those using this software se3em to be in that setting, it should be made a priority. Thank you Rhys Black > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
