Hi,
are you suggesting we should extend the DOM with a proprietary
method? In this case I'm not completely against it considering that the
DOM specs pay no attention to memory management. Another alternative would
be to put the method in the impl file and cast down to it.
Gareth
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Erik Rydgren wrote:
> I agree that this is a good way of providing both functionalities and it
> actually made implementation a bit easier.
> I took the liberty to write the whole shabang down in code.
> This is written direcly from the specifications now.
> As always the code compiles but it is untested. Please verify.
>
> Regards
>
> Erik Rydgren
> Mandarinen systems AB
> Sweden
>
> --- CODE ---
>
> const XMLCh* DOMNodeImpl::getTextContent(XMLCh* pzBuffer, unsigned int&
> rnBufferLength) const
> {
> unsigned int nRemainingBuffer = rnBufferLength;
> rnBufferLength = 0;
> if (pzBuffer)
> *pzBuffer = 0;
>
> DOMNode *thisNode = castToNode(this);
> switch (thisNode->getNodeType()) {
> case DOMNode::ELEMENT_NODE:
> case DOMNode::ENTITY_NODE:
> case DOMNode::ENTITY_REFERENCE_NODE:
> case DOMNode::DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT_NODE:
> {
> DOMNode* current = thisNode->getFirstChild();
> while (current != NULL) {
> if (current->getNodeType() != DOMNode::COMMENT_NODE &&
> current->getNodeType() != DOMNode::PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION_NODE)
> {
> if (pzBuffer) {
> unsigned int nContentLength = nRemainingBuffer;
> ((DOMNodeImpl*)current)->getTextContent(pzBuffer +
> rnBufferLength, nContentLength);
> rnBufferLength += nContentLength;
> nRemainingBuffer -= nContentLength;
> }
> else {
> unsigned int nContentLength = 0;
> ((DOMNodeImpl*)current)->getTextContent(NULL, nContentLength);
> rnBufferLength += nContentLength;
> }
> }
> current = current->getNextSibling();
> }
> }
> break;
>
> case DOMNode::ATTRIBUTE_NODE:
> case DOMNode::TEXT_NODE:
> case DOMNode::CDATA_SECTION_NODE:
> case DOMNode::COMMENT_NODE:
> case DOMNode::PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION_NODE:
> {
> const XMLCh* pzValue = thisNode->getNodeValue();
> unsigned int nStrLen = XMLString::stringLen(pzValue);
> if (pzBuffer) {
> unsigned int nContentLength = (nRemainingBuffer >= nStrLen) ?
> nStrLen : nRemainingBuffer;
> XMLString::copyNString(pzBuffer + rnBufferLength, pzValue,
> nContentLength);
> rnBufferLength += nContentLength;
> nRemainingBuffer -= nContentLength;
> }
> else {
> rnBufferLength += nStrLen;
> }
> }
> break;
> }
> return pzBuffer;
> }
>
> const XMLCh* DOMNodeImpl::getTextContent() const
> {
> unsigned int nBufferLength = 0;
> getTextContent(NULL, nBufferLength);
> XMLCh* pzBuffer = (XMLCh*)
> ((DOMDocumentImpl*)getOwnerDocument())->allocate(nBufferLength+1);
> getTextContent(pzBuffer, nBufferLength);
> pzBuffer[nBufferLength] = 0;
> return pzBuffer;
> }
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: den 2 april 2003 02:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Implementing getTextContent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> What about another overload which allows for a user-supplied buffer for the
> text, along with an argument which specifies the maximum numbers of
> characters to copy, returning the number of characters actually copied?
> That, along with an implementation that would allow passing in a null
> pointer for the buffer to indicate the call should just determine how large
> a buffer needs to be would be the most efficient way to go. Then, the
> other original API can be implemented using the new one.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth...
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> |---------+--------------------------->
> | | "Neil Graham" |
> | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> | | m> |
> | | |
> | | 04/01/2003 02:52|
> | | PM |
> | | Please respond |
> | | to xerces-c-dev |
> |---------+--------------------------->
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------|
> |
> |
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> | cc: (bcc: David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
> |
> | Subject: RE: Implementing getTextContent
> |
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
> Hi Erik and Gareth,
>
> FWIW, I'm fairly strongly of the view that we need to preserve consistency
> here so that the parser owns this memory. It's always bad to be
> inconsistent but isn't it especially bad with things as subtle as memory
> management?
>
> Besides, the memory here is no larger than the sum of all the textual
> children of the node; when you think about how heavy the DOM tends to be,
> so long as this is documented in a FAQ somewhere I think this should be
> acceptable. After all, if a user just wants text then surely she should be
> using SAX; otherwise there's generally likely lots of other operations
> being performed (i.e., getTextContent shouldn't be used that often).
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
> Neil Graham
> XML Parser Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
> Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> | | "Erik Rydgren" |
> | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> | | darinen.se> |
> | | |
> | | 04/01/2003 05:01 |
> | | AM |
> | | Please respond to|
> | | xerces-c-dev |
> | | |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> |
> |
> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |
> | cc:
> |
> | Subject: RE: Implementing getTextContent
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> I agree, I like consistency.
> Let's register the string into the document by allocating the memory on the
> documents heap.
> Although, the result can be very large. Should we allow the user to release
> the memory when not used anymore? How?
>
> / Erik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gareth Reakes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: den 1 april 2003 11:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Implementing getTextContent
>
>
> Hi,
> there are no other methods in the DOM interface that you have
> to
> do that with. My opinion is that we allow the document to manage this as
> well for consistency. Anyone else got an opinion?
>
> Gareth
>
>
> --
> Gareth Reakes, Head of Product Development +44-1865-203192
> DecisionSoft Limited http://www.decisionsoft.com
> XML Development and Services
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Gareth Reakes, Head of Product Development +44-1865-203192
DecisionSoft Limited http://www.decisionsoft.com
XML Development and Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
