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

Re: A side-effect example

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <44505308.6070107@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> | In the third example, the same step is shared amongst three append
> | steps.  Here we have to decide on whether there is *caching* of results,
> | separate invocations, or user control of either behavior.
> 
> No, I disagree. In this example, the timestamp component has three
> outputs. What those outputs are is the responsibility of the
> component. If timestamp has only one output, then you need additional
> p:tee components in there to make the pipeline sensible.

OK.  Depends on how you interpret the drawing:

    1. One output used three times.
    2. Three outputs.

I was thinking (1) when I drew it but I can see how (2) can be 
interpreted from the graph.

--Alex Milowski
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 05:14:01 GMT

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