[ http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/XALANJ-667?page=history ]
Henry Zongaro updated XALANJ-667:
---------------------------------
type: Improvement (was: Bug)
Description:
In org.apache.xml.dtm.ref.dom2dtm.DOM2DTM.getHandleOfNode "==" used to
test for two nodes been the same. In the comment just before this method
definition it is stated that this is "flaky" solution, and I can not agree more.
The question is, what is wrong with using "equals" instead of "=="? I do
realize that "equals" is not part of the DOM, but same is true for "==".
Andrei Tchijov
PS These are snipets of code I am talking about
public int getHandleOfNode(Node node)
{
if (null != node)
{
// Is Node actually within the same document? If not, don't search!
// This would be easier if m_root was always the Document node, but
// we decided to allow wrapping a DTM around a subtree.
/*
* hyperNOC fix.
* used to be
if((m_root==node) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root==node.getOwnerDocument()) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.getOwnerDocument()==node.getOwnerDocument())
)
*/
if((m_root==node) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.equals( node.getOwnerDocument())) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.getOwnerDocument().equals( node.getOwnerDocument()))
)
{
// If node _is_ in m_root's tree, find its handle
//
// %OPT% This check may be improved significantly when DOM
// Level 3 nodeKey and relative-order tests become
// available!
for(Node cursor=node;
cursor!=null;
cursor=
(cursor.getNodeType()!=ATTRIBUTE_NODE)
? cursor.getParentNode()
: ((org.w3c.dom.Attr)cursor).getOwnerElement())
{
/*
* hyperNOC fix.
* used to be
if(cursor==m_root)
*/
if(cursor.equals( m_root ))
// We know this node; find its handle.
return getHandleFromNode(node);
} // for ancestors of node
} // if node and m_root in same Document
} // if node!=null
return DTM.NULL;
}
Same is true for getHandleFromNode
private int getHandleFromNode(Node node)
{
if (null != node)
{
int len = m_nodes.size();
boolean isMore;
int i = 0;
do
{
for (; i < len; i++)
{
/*
* hyperNOC fix
* used to be
if (m_nodes.elementAt(i) == node)
*/
if (m_nodes.elementAt(i).equals( node ))
return i | m_dtmIdent;
}
isMore = nextNode();
len = m_nodes.size();
}
while(isMore || i < len);
}
return DTM.NULL;
}
was:
In org.apache.xml.dtm.ref.dom2dtm.DOM2DTM.getHandleOfNode "==" used to
test for two nodes been the same. In the comment just before this method
definition it is stated that this is "flaky" solution, and I can not agree more.
The question is, what is wrong with using "equals" instead of "=="? I do
realize that "equals" is not part of the DOM, but same is true for "==".
Andrei Tchijov
PS These are snipets of code I am talking about
public int getHandleOfNode(Node node)
{
if (null != node)
{
// Is Node actually within the same document? If not, don't search!
// This would be easier if m_root was always the Document node, but
// we decided to allow wrapping a DTM around a subtree.
/*
* hyperNOC fix.
* used to be
if((m_root==node) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root==node.getOwnerDocument()) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.getOwnerDocument()==node.getOwnerDocument())
)
*/
if((m_root==node) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.equals( node.getOwnerDocument())) ||
(m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
m_root.getOwnerDocument().equals( node.getOwnerDocument()))
)
{
// If node _is_ in m_root's tree, find its handle
//
// %OPT% This check may be improved significantly when DOM
// Level 3 nodeKey and relative-order tests become
// available!
for(Node cursor=node;
cursor!=null;
cursor=
(cursor.getNodeType()!=ATTRIBUTE_NODE)
? cursor.getParentNode()
: ((org.w3c.dom.Attr)cursor).getOwnerElement())
{
/*
* hyperNOC fix.
* used to be
if(cursor==m_root)
*/
if(cursor.equals( m_root ))
// We know this node; find its handle.
return getHandleFromNode(node);
} // for ancestors of node
} // if node and m_root in same Document
} // if node!=null
return DTM.NULL;
}
Same is true for getHandleFromNode
private int getHandleFromNode(Node node)
{
if (null != node)
{
int len = m_nodes.size();
boolean isMore;
int i = 0;
do
{
for (; i < len; i++)
{
/*
* hyperNOC fix
* used to be
if (m_nodes.elementAt(i) == node)
*/
if (m_nodes.elementAt(i).equals( node ))
return i | m_dtmIdent;
}
isMore = nextNode();
len = m_nodes.size();
}
while(isMore || i < len);
}
return DTM.NULL;
}
Environment:
Operating System: Other
Platform: Other
was:
Operating System: Other
Platform: Other
Priority: Major
Bugzilla Id: (was: 4808)
> using object identity as a substitute for isSameNode is bad idea
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: XALANJ-667
> URL: http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/XALANJ-667
> Project: XalanJ2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: DTM
> Versions: 2.0.0
> Environment: Operating System: Other
> Platform: Other
> Reporter: Andrei Tchijov
> Assignee: Joe Kesselman
>
> In org.apache.xml.dtm.ref.dom2dtm.DOM2DTM.getHandleOfNode "==" used to
> test for two nodes been the same. In the comment just before this method
> definition it is stated that this is "flaky" solution, and I can not agree
> more.
> The question is, what is wrong with using "equals" instead of "=="? I do
> realize that "equals" is not part of the DOM, but same is true for "==".
> Andrei Tchijov
> PS These are snipets of code I am talking about
> public int getHandleOfNode(Node node)
> {
> if (null != node)
> {
> // Is Node actually within the same document? If not, don't search!
> // This would be easier if m_root was always the Document node, but
> // we decided to allow wrapping a DTM around a subtree.
> /*
> * hyperNOC fix.
> * used to be
> if((m_root==node) ||
> (m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
> m_root==node.getOwnerDocument()) ||
> (m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
> m_root.getOwnerDocument()==node.getOwnerDocument())
> )
> */
> if((m_root==node) ||
> (m_root.getNodeType()==DOCUMENT_NODE &&
> m_root.equals( node.getOwnerDocument())) ||
> (m_root.getNodeType()!=DOCUMENT_NODE &&
> m_root.getOwnerDocument().equals( node.getOwnerDocument()))
> )
> {
> // If node _is_ in m_root's tree, find its handle
> //
> // %OPT% This check may be improved significantly when DOM
> // Level 3 nodeKey and relative-order tests become
> // available!
> for(Node cursor=node;
> cursor!=null;
> cursor=
> (cursor.getNodeType()!=ATTRIBUTE_NODE)
> ? cursor.getParentNode()
> : ((org.w3c.dom.Attr)cursor).getOwnerElement())
> {
> /*
> * hyperNOC fix.
> * used to be
> if(cursor==m_root)
> */
> if(cursor.equals( m_root ))
> // We know this node; find its handle.
> return getHandleFromNode(node);
> } // for ancestors of node
> } // if node and m_root in same Document
> } // if node!=null
> return DTM.NULL;
> }
> Same is true for getHandleFromNode
> private int getHandleFromNode(Node node)
> {
> if (null != node)
> {
> int len = m_nodes.size();
> boolean isMore;
> int i = 0;
> do
> {
> for (; i < len; i++)
> {
> /*
> * hyperNOC fix
> * used to be
> if (m_nodes.elementAt(i) == node)
> */
> if (m_nodes.elementAt(i).equals( node ))
> return i | m_dtmIdent;
> }
> isMore = nextNode();
>
> len = m_nodes.size();
>
> }
> while(isMore || i < len);
> }
>
> return DTM.NULL;
> }
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
