From: Bjorn Reese (breese@mail1.stofanet.dk)
Date: Sat Oct 14 2000 - 11:39:26 EDT
Daniel Veillard wrote:
> - this introduce a binary incompatible change, some data
> structures are changed and that a first thing I will have
> to correct
Why is binary compatibility an issue?
> - an hash table only makes sense if the pool of object is
> clearly larger than the number of entries, and whatever how I
> turn the problem, I don't see how i would need to register
> 250 functions, if you have such an use case please enlighten me
Let me reiterate, the number is arbitrarily chosen. Change it to
whatever pleases you.
> - the function used to compute the hash looks rather costly
> you have a multiply and an add per char in the string, I
> usually simply compute the sum of all chars in the string
> which for a 256 hash size should be good enough.
I use a standard hash key computation algorithm. If you disapprove
of it, change it (if you feel the distribution of your algorithm is
good enough). I don't see the issue here.
> - the overall memory used for storing the hash table seems a
> bit inappropriate in that specific case of the few XPath
> functions (but tiny compare to a DOM tree size and other use
> of hash tables in libxml).
As you mention, the size of the hash table is neglible compared to
the size of the parse tree. We are talking peanuts here. Again, I
don't see the issue here.
> - adding a new header and C file would only really make sense if
> those were reused in multiple places.
>
> I think integrating the patch as is is a bit problematic right now.
> But I think it does make sense to try to reuse it to make it the
> hash table interfaces used in other parts as well (entities, element/
> attributes/notations declarations, and the XPath registry).
This was exactly the reason why I made the hash functions generic,
and put them in separate files (well, this and the good software
engineering practice of modulability).
> I hope that you won't take offense if I don't integrate it for
> 2.2.5, I think I will reuse it but as explained in a larger context :-)
Well, I was only trying to be helpful. I do not take personal
offence, but I will, in all likelihood, be more cautious with
future submissions.
---- Message from the list xml@rpmfind.net Archived at : http://xmlsoft.org/messages/ to unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe xml" | mail majordomo@rpmfind.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 14 2000 - 11:43:28 EDT