You could dummy the implementations out, but it probably wouldn't gain much.
Other than in the current DOM implementation, there isn't really much
synchronization required. Its already assumed that any use of the parser
itself will be synchronized externally. So there is just a little
synchronization to deal with the lazy eval of some statics, which should
only happen once per static initialized. There might be a couple of other
places, but if so I don't remember them right off hand.
If its the DOM you are concerned about (and I think I'm still up to date on
the current DOM implementation issues, and that it does still have lots of
synchronization), then perhaps its worth doing.
--------------
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Portal, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Houle, Dennis W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:23 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Parser external synchronization
Team Xerces,
If I guarantee (via external synchronization) that only a single thread will
ever be active in a parser instance, can I forgo implementation of the
PlatformUtils mutexes and atomic operations?
The motivation for this is that in my application, the multiple users of the
parser will each make entire sequences of parser accesses atomic (via
lockParser() and unlockParser() operations on a parser wrapper class). So
we want to avoid the extra overhead of the parser internally taking and
releasing a mutex on each parser access within the atomic sequences.
Thanks for any insights.
Dennis W. Houle
Tactical Communications Networks
The Boeing Company
(714) 762-0291
(714) 762-2253 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
