[XML-SIG] qp API

[Paul Prescod]

"Fred L. Drake" wrote:
> 
> Paul Prescod writes:
>  > If we take out parent and sibling pointers, I see know reason that a DOM
>  > implementation should be more than a few percent slower than qp_xml. In
> 
>   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
> proxies.

The problem with close() is that it is O(N) with the size of your
document, isn't it? I'm on the fence about parent pointers...maybe they
should be a construction option. They would be off by default.

>   I haven't actually needed sibling pointers, so I'm not sure I care
> about them.  They can be computed easily enough if someone wants the
> data on an "occaisional" basis.

True.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Company spokeswoman Lana Simon stressed that Interactive 
Yoda is not a Furby. Well, not exactly. 

"This is an interactive toy that utilizes Furby technology," 
Simon said. "It will react to its surroundings and will talk." 
  - http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/19222.html