[XML-SIG] qp API
Fred L. Drake
Fred L. Drake, Jr." <email@example.com
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
> I'd like to see the parent pointer kept, but I'm also fine with an
>explicit destroy() or close() method instead of those damnable
Andrew M. Kuchling writes:
> What problems do the proxies present? It would be possible to
> remove them and use an explicit destroy() if they present technical
They require a lot of object creation, and slow things down a lot
for tree walking and generally ensuring you have sufficiently
> If you have parent and child pointers, you don't need sibling
> pointers since you just go up to the parent & retrieve its children.
That's what I meant about them being easily computable.
> PyDOM is upward-compatible with Minidom, that may not be a problem.)
> On the other hand, PyDOM *is* quite heavyweight, and I can understand
> the desire for something similar. Can people please give their
> opinions about this?
I think sufficient compatibility can be kept. While what I've been
doing isn't performance critical, it can be a real nuissance. I'd
like it to be fast for the same reasons I want a compiler to be fast:
sometimes I'm actually waiting in blocking mode. ;-(
I may have a more interesting need for performance in the future,
but I'm not sure yet.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives