Re: Memoization

On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:30:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 09:05:48AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> So the cache implementation would "only" save the parsing stage.
> 
> >   document() will parse *complete* documents so there is no risk.
> > 
> > > resolve to a different result depending on the entity declaration
> > > in the importing document?
> > 
> >   it's not an import mechanism, and even though import at the XSLT level
> > does import complete document too.
> > 
> > > The really imteresting point (IMHO) would be: is it posible to
> > > "compact" a parsed XML document (read: xmlDoc) to a memory area
> > > of known size so it can be shared be means of shared memory?
> > 
> >   You're mixing issues it seems. 1/ compacting in memory representation
> > and 2/ sharing parsed trees. 1/ sounds impossible and precompiled XML
> > makes IMHO very little sense unless your parser is dead slow (think Java).
> > 2/ is already possible as long as you either don't modify the xmlDocPtr
> > or make sure the reader/writer scheme allows only one write or
> > only reads at any time.
> 
> Well, 1/ would be a cnvenient way to ensure that all of the xmlDoc sits
> in the same shared memory area.
> Is 2/ really possible in a shared memory situation? I thought all of the 
> shared structure must be in memory allocated as shared memory.

  I won't try to address sharing document between processes at the library
level. Use threadsor roll your own mechanism.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
[email protected]  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/