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

Re: p:pipeline

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:25:22 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87mzaw8mul.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| In standard programming languages, users tend to use naming
| conventions to distinguish between the functions that other users
| might want to reuse and those that are behind the scenes. I don't see
| why they can't do the same with a pipeline language.

They could. But some standard programming languages do allow you to do
better than that. Java, for example, allows inner classes, which is
the analogy that I guess I'm thinking of.

| At the end of the day, I think we want to have single files that hold
| multiple sibling invokable pipelines. We might have sub-pipelines as
| well (that are only usable within the pipeline in which they're
| declared), but if we do, we're only adding an extra feature that I
| don't think we really need in v1.0.

Yeah, I just noticed the "single files that hold multiple sibling
invokable pipelines" feature of a p:pipelines wrapper.

I don't want two ways of doing it. I don't want a p:pipelines wrapper
*and* nested p:pipeline elements, so if the "sibling invokable
pipelines" feature is really important, then I concede that
p:pipelines is the better choice.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 14:25:26 GMT

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