Victor Mote wrote: > Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > > > I think we should separate fo tree itself from the process of its > > building. fo > > tree structure is required and I agree with Keiron - it's not a > > DOM, it's just > > tree representation and I cherish the idea to make it an > > effectively small > > structure like saxon's internal tree. But any interim buffers should be > > avoided as much as it's possible (well, Piter's buffer seems not > > to be a burden). > > This is probably a philosophical difference. It seems to me that the area > tree is built on the foundation of the fo tree, and that if we only get a > brief glimpse of the fo tree as it goes by, not only does our foundation > disappear, but we end up putting all of that weight into the > superstructure, > which tends to make the whole thing collapse.
Oleg: After thinking about this a bit more, I think I confused this issue. I think what you were saying is that the existing FOP FO tree /is/ the lightweight data structure that you like. I see your point, and yes I agree, there is no need to replace it with something heavier. My train of thought was in a different direction -- ie. how to get that structure written to disk when necessary so that it doesn't all have to be in memory. I (think I) also had a wrong conception of how long the FO tree data persisted. My apologies for the confusion. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
