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?

Regards,
Vojtech
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