Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
2.5
-
None
-
None
-
Operating System: other
Platform: All
-
41656
Description
The proposed patch refactors the fo tree in the following ways:
-> removal of the childNodes instance member in fop.fo.FObj
-> addition of a firstChild instance member in fop.fo.FObj
-> addition of a siblings instance member in fop.fo.FONode
-> addition of a FONodeIterator interface in FONode + corresponding implementation in FObj
-> changed implementations of FObj.addChildNode(), .removeChild() and .getChildNodes()
Possible benefits:
Reduction of the number of ArrayLists used by the fo tree.
Before the patch, for every FObj that has at least one child, an ArrayList is instantiated with a default
capacity of 10 elements (a backing Object[10], effectively wasting space on nulls in a substantial
amount of cases)
After the patch, every FObj has a maximum of 3 references: one first-child (possibly null), a preceding
and a following sibling. If the node only has children, it will have only two references: one child, one
uninitialized array of siblings.
Downside is that this means an added reference for any FONode, even FOText or a single child, but this
may be negligeable, considering that most FObj subtypes in general have a quite a few references
already (mostly properties).
Another upside: this refactoring made it possible to remove fo:character nodes during the refinement
white-space-handling /as they were encountered/, so there was no more need to wait for the
RecursiveCharIterator to go out of scope. The FObjIterator does not throw a
ConcurrentModificationException, since there is no real backing list anymore.
More generally, while extremely dangerous if used carelessly, this does open up the possibility of
starting to process the virtual list of child nodes while another thread keeps appending nodes to the
end.
Since this is only a proof-of-concept, I'd appreciate any feedback, especially from the profiler-geeks
out there (Richard? I'd be very interested to see how many more cells you can process before running
into an OOMError...)
I'd expect it to save us 'some' heap space, no idea how much. OTOH, I'd also expect a slowdown –
since an add() means traversing the following-sibling axis until the last one is reached. I have not yet
performed any optimizations where it comes to FOs with a lot of children. Maybe a solution would be to
use an iterator for the addition, and append the new child to its previous element...?
In the (very) long run, parts of the layout algorithm may already be triggered sooner.
For example: layoutmanager initialization, base element list generation, providing new pages...
This latter would, however, take quite a bit of refactoring, so don't get any wild ideas. 