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

Re: p:pipeline

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:48:21 +0100
Message-ID: <44C4A575.9020406@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote:
> I'm still imagining that there'll be some XML vocabulary for defining
> the "signatures" of components. We'll publish a bunch which
> implementations must support (and maybe some that they can optionally
> support, if we must) but they're free to add their own. From a users
> point of view, a component is just a QName so whether it's a web
> service or not is irrelevant.
> 
> I think we'll probably want to allow such declarations to occur in
> pipelines as well.
> 
>   <p:pipeline name="my:pipe">
>     <p:declare-input ...
>     <p:declare-output ...
> 
>     <p:declare-component name="my:ouiji"
>                          my:javaClass="com.nwalsh.xproc.OuijiBoard">
>       <p:declare-input ...
>       <p:declare-input ...
>       <p:declare-input ...
>       <p:declare-output ...
>     </p:declare-component>
> 
>     <p:step kind="my:ouiji">
>       <p:input ...
>       <p:input ...
>       <p:input ...
>       <p:output ...
>     </p:step>
>   </p:pipeline>

I'm with Jenny on this one, I believe that component declarations 
shouldn't occur inside a pipeline, but on a separate file (as in 
configuration file).

Also, this "configuration" file could be used to configure component 
parameters (as opposed to step parameters). E.g. an xslt component 
parameter for selecting its verbosity level. This way, every xslt step 
parameter would be bound to "xsl:param".


Cheers,
Rui

Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 10:48:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:48 GMT