- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:22:21 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 3/24/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> 1. We say nothing about it. Some implementations will cache, others
> won't. Even on systems that don't cache, side effects of operation
> will sometimes make caching appear to happen and sometimes not.
>
> 2. We require caching. This may be a significant implementation issue.
> It looks like a big step for V1.
>
> 3. We forbid caching. This may be a significant implementation issue.
> It may not even be possible for some implementations to prevent side
> effects from "effective" caching.
In my experience, writing a pipeline engine that works is 20% of the
work. The remaining 80% have to do with writing a great caching engine
and tweaking all the components so caching happens is way that is
transparent to the user ("it just works!").
So I don't see 3 as an option. I wouldn't try to go with 2. Defining
how caching should work is a fairly complex issue. In some cases the
way you want caching to work might depend on the scenario you have in
mind. I am happy with option 1, with maybe the addition of
non-normative guidelines for people who with to implementing caching.
Alex
--
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:22:24 UTC