abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Understanding Incremental Parsing [was Re: failing parser test]
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:56:49 GMT
Was wondering if someone could answer a quick question on the 
incremental parsing business just so I can be sure I fully get things. 
As I understand most parts of the abdera model (at least the impl) are 
built on an Axiom OMElementImpl. As far as incremental parsing is 
concerned, the thing that this is buying Abdera is that Axiom can 
discard nodes later on right? i.e. I can read entry 1 than move to entry 
2 and entry 1 will leave memory? If so, how is that turned on?

- Dan

James M Snell wrote:
> Forcing a clone is the wrong thing to do, but we could introduce a
> method that would force the parse to complete without creating a bunch
> of duplicate objects. FWIW, that could be done today by calling
> toString() rather than clone.
> - James
> Ugo Cei wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>> I think this test should be disabled for now. I don't think its good
>>> policy to just leave a failing test in the build. The build should
>>> *always* build and *always* run the tests IMO.  The issue can just be
>>> marked as a blocker for the release and revisited when time/priorities
>>> permit. As a user and developer its very frustrating to find a build
>>> that doesn't work (like the maven build in abdera currently).
>> I am always fighting with myself over issues like this one, but in this
>> case I think you are right, so I've put the workaround in place to make
>> the test succeed.
>> I also agree with Garrett that this should be considered a bug: it's
>> just too easy for users to fall into it and bang their head against a
>> wall for a few hours before they realize this is the way the code is
>> actually supposed to work and implementing the workaround in their own
>> code.
>> OTOH, I don't know how easy this would be to fix: maybe by keeping track
>> of partially-parsed documents and calling clone() internally when a
>> modification attempt is detected? Sounds messy.
>>     Ugo

Dan Diephouse
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

View raw message