Re: Annotations for side effects and stability

On 4/27/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> I feel that my attempts to persuade the WG that there's value in
> having components identified as being functional has so far failed and
> I'm inclined to abandon it.

Hearing the arguments presented so far, I see more drawbacks than
benefits to both: (a) enforcing that components have no side-effects
and (b) enforcing URI stability. So I concur with your conclusion.

> Although it seems reasonable to me, I'd
> like not to delay WG progress for it any further, if we can get
> consensus to abandon it. I don't actually think that pipelines like 2
> above occur very often. And if they do, and if the user really wants
> to make sure that p:foo is only executed once, it can be rewritten:
>
>      <p:pipeline>
>          <p:output ref="foo1"/>
>          <p:output ref="foo2"/>
>          <p:step name="p:foo">
>              <p:input href="foo.xml"/>
>              <p:output label="tee"/>
>          </p:step>
>          <p:step name="p:tee">
>              [...]

Again, I agree. And as a syntactic sugar, we can make the "tee"
implicit when there are multiple references to the same label in the
pipeline.

Alex