At 07:31 PM 7/31/2001 +0200, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
Joe Lapp [] wrote:
> I think we do need a low-level incremental API, but I don't
> think it should be random access.

Well, we disagree. Somewhat.

I just thought I'd let you know that we are now in agreement.

In a preceding post I said that in the process of preparing a counter-argument to the need for low-level graphs, I solidly convinced myself that the graph should be there, at least virtually.  That same thought experiment convinced me that when all balances are told, the gain of an incremental-only API over a random-access API is negligible.

Random-access it should therefore be, even at in low level API.

The API I did for webMethods was random access.  I never made a purely incremental one, but I always thought I could and that it would be much more efficient for (de)serialization.  Now I'm convinced that what I did for webMethods was right!  I'm feeling much better now.  Thank you!

I also have ideas for how I could implement the sliding window more effectively.  I should give these a closer look to see whether I did that right too.  As with the API, I was never completely happy with it.  Maybe that's just the programmer's curse: a program isn't done until you die.