W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Auxiliary documents

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:37:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0604201437id057e54w12bf3751fb245bed@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 4/20/06, Fang, Andrew <afang@ptc.com> wrote:
> Instead of having the pipeline implementation decide whether XSLT Step 1
> should be run, how about have XSLT Step 1 itself decide whether it
> should run the transformation and simply return a cached result if
> nothing has changed from a previous run? From pipeline's point of view,
> the XSLT Step 1 has to run before XSLT Step 2, but in reality, XSLT Step
> 1 simply returns a previous cached result. The overhead should be
> minimal.

Hi Andrew,

Yes, in a caching implementation, there will be a tight collaboration
between the pipeline implementation and components implementation. In
our implementation of XPL (http://www.w3.org/Submission/xpl/), it
would not be the XSLT document that flows between step 1 and step 2
that would be cached, but instead the data structure created by XSLT
engine after having parsed/analyzed the stylesheet would be cached. If
the caching is possible, this saves the implementation from running
step 1, but it also saves step 2 from parsing/analyzing the
stylesheet.

I see those strategies as being outside of the scope of the pipeline
language. IMHO, we want the pipeline language to allow simple
implementations that does not perform any caching or more complex
implementations with the type of caching algorithms we discussed.

Alex
--
Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 21:37:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT