Fred L. Drake Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:18:48 -0400 (EDT)

I wrote:
 >  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
"current" references.

 > 	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.	     <fdrake@acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives