"Paul Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:35:28AM -0700, Jason E. Stewart wrote: > > IDOM should *not* have any memory issues. Given my brief look at the > > code, I actually think that it will be impossible to *ever* fix the > > current DOM implementation. If it is possible it will be very painful, > > and givent that IDOM will shortly replace DOM, I will never do it. > > > > Please try it out with IDOM instead. Just substitute IDOMParser > > everywhere you currently use DOMParser. Let me know how it works. > > Yep - works like a charm. The process still grows very slighty (a few k > per generated document), but that's quite likely to be my code...
Good, I'm glad. There may be memory issues with IDOM, but like you say, they should be minor, if any. The DOM memory model is (from my read) totally incompatible with SWIG. It's model after the Java version, so you're not supposed to call new() or delete(), you're just supposed to assign everything to local variables and when they go out of scope, DOM cleans up after itself. Works fine when all your code is in C++, but we have no containing C++ scope, it's all Perl. So SWIG is merrily new()-ing away, and DOM never deallocates the memory. This alone gives me a reason to replace DOM in XML::Xerces with IDOM under the hood. Thanks for your help Paul, jas. PS. the issue with SWIG-1.3 is still important, but as long as you can use IDOM, I can fix that in a few weeks (after my conference is over). Could you enter a bug for it in Bugzilla: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Xerces-P You'll have to register first, but I'd really appreciate it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
