[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: AttributeMap (was Re: Announcement: SAX 1998-01-12 Draft)
James Clark wrote: >If SAX is supposed to be abstract and extensible, then it needs a >substantial rework. Something like this would be much more extensible: > >interface DocumentHandler { > void startElement(StartElementEvent event); > void endElement(EndElementEvent event); > void characters(CharactersEvent event); > //... >} > >Simplicity was the main design goal of SAX. > >Why do we get abstraction and extensibility for attributes but for >nothing else? Abstraction and extensibility are not absolutes. Although simplicity was the main design goal, the need for good abstractions was clearly an ever-present consideration. You yourself argued (quite rightly) for a separate EntityManager interface, and the continuing discussion led to the definition of several other separate interfaces. This is certainly a sacrifice of simplicity for extensibility and very much correct, IMHO. In the case of the AttributeMap, the lack of an elegant way to find an attribute by name is pretty killer, even without considering the implications for extensibility. >> Also, this makes iteration easy but >> finding attributes by name very hard. >> >> An AttributeMap interface should be used, but: >> >> 1) It should provide a standard iterator interface (this is the only >> reasonable way to iterate over a map). > >This has all the inefficiencies that I listed for Enumeration. >Requiring an object to be allocated on each start-tag is really not a >good idea (it makes a measurable difference to performance in Java). > >Something like this: > >interface AttributeList { > int length(); // or maybe size > String getValue(int i); // or maybe valueAt > String getName(int i); // or maybe nameAt > String get(String name); >} > >would be significantly more efficient. > >At the very least provide an isEmpty() so that I don't have to do the >allocation in the common case there are no attributes. I didn't understand this. Why is an AttributeList interface inherently more efficient than AttributeMap? The use of an AttributeMap interface doesn't imply the creation of an object per start tag, any more than AttributeList does. Are you assuming an underlying hashtable implementation (or whatever)? This doesn't have to be the case; you could implement a map interface on top of a list, which would be just as efficient as your "String get(String name)". It seems to me that the metrics of the document and details of the usage case (average number of attributes per tag, need to iterate attributes, need to access attributes by name, etc.) would determine which underlying implementation would be more efficient in which case. I also don't see the need for "isEmpty()". Why not just instantiate a single "empty map" object in the parser and send it whenever the attribute list is empty? Matthew 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...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|