- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:47:36 +0000
- To: "Alessandro Vernet" <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alessandro Thank you for clear reformulation of my thoutght Yes that's it ! Mohamed On 3/30/06, Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> wrote: > > On 3/23/06, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > The idea is to allow backtracking of the pipeline (manage the pipes by > > taking the outputs of it) and looking if condition changes so the > > processor could regenerate the content > > > > So S2 which is the last for example has a test which could tell to the > > processor (which could just be, "has the file timestamp of A changed > > ?" > > Mohamed, > > Assuming we have a pipeline "A -> S1 -> B -> S2 -> C", in which S1 and > S2 are two steps, document A is transformed in document B by S1, and > document B transformed in document C by S2, then you are saying that > you would the pipeline language not to prevent an implementation from > being able to detect when running the pipeline that the pipeline has > already been executed before, that A has not changed since then, that > S1 and S2 have no side effect, and that consequently there is no need > to actually to run the steps S1 and S2, as they would generate the > same output documents. > > Is this way to put it consistent with the idea you had in mind? If it > is, I for one am favorable to include this in our list of use cases. > > Alex > -- > Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source): > http://www.orbeon.com/blog/ > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 17:30:44 UTC