Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Miles Sabin wrote: > OK, I agree that this check is O(1). However, that's only > because the granularity of the check is so coarse: a single > document-level timestamp will cause a lot of unnecessary > invalidation ... Agreed. But this isn't so important if there are few active iterators (= iterators that will ever be resumed), which was my point. > I suspect that it would make the performance > of modifying a document via iterators unacceptably poor. Here I think the JDK 1.2 java.util.Iterator class is useful: it has a "remove" method which removes the last element iterated to in a safe way, or raises an exception if the underlying container is read-only. > Moving to per-node timestamps would reduce the amount of > unnecessary invalidation, and preserve the O(1) check, > but at the cost of making tree modifications O(log n). Just so. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@c... You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
