Re: Threading and ordering

"Toman, Vojtech" <vojtech.toman@emc.com> writes:
>> Indeed. Though we can use the feature on steps like p:count so it won't
>> be that obscure. And it only applies to steps that take sequences on
>> input.

I obviously botched that list the first time around:

ordered=false:
  p:count
  p:sink

ordered=true:
  p:identity
  p:insert
  p:pack
  p:split-sequence
  p:wrap-sequence
  p:xslt
  p:exec
  p:xquery

ordered=i'm not sure:
  p:validate-with-xml-schema
>
> I don't know. My feeling is that I would prefer to have everything
> ordered (or everything unordered) by default and give people the
> ability to change that where they need to.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Specifically, I'm suggesting that
ordered is the default and that we specify:

  <p:input port="source" ordered="false"/>

for p:count and p:sink.

> There is a difference between specifying the "ordered" flag on the
> step declaration (on the input/output port level, I presume)

I don't think they're needed on the output. The step outputs them in
the order it outputs them. It's just the "engine" that has to know if
the output order must be preserved for the input to which it's
connected.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com