W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > October 2009

RE: Another take on versioning

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:53:51 -0400
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C037D72@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> I had a chat about this general issue with Richard Tobin over lunch,
> and here's my (possibly imperfect) attempt to reconstruct his
> suggested approach:
> The problem that having up-to-date signatures for Vnext steps solves
> for Vlast processors is, basically, what to do with steps it doesn't
> really understand.  So remove that problem directly.  Don't rely on
> p:choose or p:try/p:catch to manage compatible processing, which
> amounts to doing it at the semantic level.  Use C interop best
> practice as your guide, and do it at the syntactic (== #ifdef) level.

Interesting idea. But what about Vnext pipelines without the p:switch
directives? As far as I understand it, p:switch would be a nice tool to
ensure interoperability between between Vlast and Vnext processors. But
what if I don't (because I never thought about it, or because I am lazy)
use p:switch and pass my Vnext pipeline to a Vlast processor? Then we
still have the basic problem we are trying to address here (unknown or
different signatures of steps), right?

Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 12:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:27 UTC