Yeah, I saw that ;) Don't worry, I am aware of it. My first goal is to make sure it works like it should, because that comes first, and then to optimize. I'll check the memory side of things and make sure it's at least the same as before. If you can point me to some publicly accessible large test cases that would be really helpful. I will work through that before I push anything.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:26 AM Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Heads up: > > I did some (on first blush) odd things in XML related to QNames. QNames > are pooled and many XML properties are not initialized by default. The > reason I did this was it avoided many MB of memory waste for complex XML. > Please don’t mess that up. > > Thanks, > Harbs > > > On Sep 4, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is particularly for Harbs and Yishay, as I think you are both (or > both > > have been) using XML quite a bit. I have quite a few fixes coming. All > > with tests that match on swf and js. > > > > I am currently working to demonstrate proof of concept to a prospective > > client for migration of a Flex app. The app makes extensive use of e4x > and > > uses a bunch of features that I expect had not received attention > > previously, because they were originally either not working with the > > codebase I am porting, or i think some even caused errors in the > javascript > > output. > > > > So I have spent the last several days almost full time figuring things > out > > and working on fixes, between the compiler and emulation classes. > > All the previous XML tests continue to pass, but I have many more unit > > tests and fixes lined up for the following: > > > > namespace directives > > default xml namespace > > use namespace (multiple) > > > > a number of fixes for xml filtering, including: > > -'this' resolves correctly in filters that include external references > from > > the fitler expression to the 'this' scope > > -handles alternate ordering of comparisons between XML 'getters' and > > literals > > e.g. something.(name() = "cat") or something.("cat" = name()) (these are > > the same) > > -it (will) now handle XML e4x references in nested function calls inside > > the filter, e.g. things like: > > e.g. > > var people:XML = <people> > > <person> > > <name>Bob</name> > > <age>32</age> > > </person> > > <person> > > <name>Joe</name> > > <age>46</age> > > </person> > > </people>; > > var findJoeByAge:Function = function (i:int):Boolean { > > return i > 40; > > }; > > people.person.(findJoeByAge(parseInt(age))).name > > > > > > I have lots more granular tests in QName, Namespace, and XML with tuning > to > > improve reliability. > > toXMLString XML node output also matches flash more correctly in what I > > have coming. > > > > One thing that I am trying to figure out, which I would appreciate input > on > > if someone has an answer: > > For the example: > > > > var feed:XML = new XML( > > '<feed xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; > > xmlns:m="nothing">\n' + > > ' <link rel="no_namespace" > > href="blah/12321/domain/"/>\n' + > > '</feed>\n'); > > var atomSpace:Namespace = new Namespace('http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'); > > > > Can anyone explain why this (in SWF, as a reference implementation): > > trace(feed.atomSpace::link.length()) > > trace(feed.atomSpace::link.toXMLString()) > > //output: > > 0 > > {empty string} > > is different to: > > trace(feed.child(new QName(atomSpace,'link')).length()) > > trace(feed.child(new QName(atomSpace,'link')).toXMLString()) > > //output: > > 1 > > <link rel="no_namespace" href="blah/12321/domain/" xmlns:atom=" > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; xmlns:m="nothing"/> > > > > I had assumed the above cases would be the same, but the second one is > > behaving as if it has the default namespace included with the specified > > namespace in the QName matching (it does correctly match the namespace > > specifically as well -with e.g. <atom:link nodes where the prefix atom is > > bound to the uri, but also seems to include link nodes with the default > > namespace, whether or not it is declared). I can accommodate this > > difference to make them behave the same, I just would like to understand > > the basis for the actual rules if anyone knows.... > > > > I should be in a position to push the updates this coming weekend I > think. > >
