From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ad0779dc60e28dee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-07 14:48:33 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Data Structure Choice for DOM
Date: 7 Mar 2003 14:48:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <ba162549.0303071448.35da9100@posting.google.com>
References: <oQ5aa.16185$EN3.130845@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.76.54.20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1047077312 3088 127.0.0.1 (7 Mar 2003 22:48:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Mar 2003 22:48:32 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35057
Date: 2003-03-07T22:48:32+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<oQ5aa.16185$EN3.130845@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> Hi all,
> 
> In the DOM Level 3 spec, a NamedNodeMap is defined.  What's the best way 
> to implement this? I'm implementing an OO version of the DOM Level 3 
> spec (in Ada*) and this one is posing a problem just choosing the right 
> implementation.  Under considering is a chained hash table and an AVL 
> tree.  Both have their advantage but there may be a more appropriate 
> choice of which I'm not aware.

Do whichever is easiest.  The maps typically contain only a few entries,
so the slight differences in performance will probably be undetectable.