At 07:31 PM 7/31/2001 +0200, Oren Ben-Kiki 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
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.