W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Are pipelines in the same library visible to each other?

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:48:23 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87wt1aps94.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> I think I agree that if we're going to allow pipelines declared in the
|> same library to see each other, we shouldn't make order significant.
|
| OK, do you need me to argue that we should allow pipelines declared in
| the same library to see each other?

No, not really. At least not personally :-)

| It would be incredibly annoying and hard to maintain pipelines if the
| physical file structure of pipeline libraries were dictated by the
| logical structure of the pipeline processes (or, to a lesser extent,
| the nominal structure of the pipeline names).

Yeah.

| Personally, I would be happy to drop the constraint that atomic step
| types must be defined before pipelines. The processor can still report
| errors when it finds atomic step types that are used without being
| defined, just has to wait until it's read everything to do so.

That suggests that you think there would be some value in allowing
p:declare-step elements to be sprinkled throughout a pipeline or
pipeline-library.

I like the conceptual neatness of putting them all at the top,
independent of the fact that this means the processor sees the
declarations first.

I like Henry's argument advanced in support of p:input*,p:output*,p:param*
(as opposed to (p:input|p:output|p:param)*): if the order is irrelevant,
pick one and enforce it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

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

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:49:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT