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

Re: Document Updated

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:24:46 -0800
Message-ID: <4828ceec0603291824v55e6b060p2317addacedbe7ad@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 3/23/06, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea is to allow backtracking of the pipeline (manage the pipes by
> taking the outputs of it) and looking if condition changes so the
> processor could regenerate the content
>
> So S2 which is the last for example has a test which could tell to the
> processor (which could just be, "has the file timestamp of A changed
> ?"

Mohamed,

Assuming we have a pipeline "A -> S1 -> B -> S2 -> C", in which S1 and
S2 are two steps, document A is transformed in document B by S1, and
document B transformed in document C by S2, then you are saying that
you would the pipeline language not to prevent an implementation from
being able to detect when running the pipeline that the pipeline has
already been executed before, that A has not changed since then, that
S1 and S2 have no side effect, and that consequently there is no need
to actually to run the steps S1 and S2, as they would generate the
same output documents.

Is this way to put it consistent with the idea you had in mind? If it
is, I for one am favorable to include this in our list of use cases.

Alex
--
Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 02:24:51 GMT

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