Hi, On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 16:06 +0100, Kasimier Buchcik wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 08:56 -0500, Rob Richards wrote:
[...] > > > About 2b): > > > I would be happy if we could agree on using the "adopt" semantics > > > prior to handing nodes over to tree-modyfing functions. Although > > > the xmlDOMWrapAdoptNode() function looks a bit scary at first > > > sight, it could constitute a centralized way of get rid of > > > doc-moving issues in every tiny function. > > > > > Agreed. This is one thing I have been meaning at looking at. The issue I > > hit was allowing a node without a doc to be passed to the setTreeDoc > > functionality with a doc using dictionaries, which resulted in the doc > > having mixed usage. Not sure what the result is if setTreeDoc is called > > where both docs use dicts. I do believe I saw some bigger problems with > > this when I first looked at it (has been a low priority for me since I > > don't allow doc adoption in these functions other than a node without a > > doc and doing so resulted in minimal impact). > > If you could send a tiny example of what didn't work with it, I would > fix it :-) Sorry, I had the xmlDOMWrapAdoptNode() function in mind when writing that I'm eager to fix things, not the xmlSetTreeDoc() function. Regards, Kasimier [...] _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
