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

Re: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:32:35 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0710251132x65d56e34qcfe85811d3749260@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 10/25/07, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> This achieves the stated goal, namely that the output defaulting rule
> can be applied w/o arbitrary recursion and analysis through named
> pipelines.

To reiterate on the argument I made during the call today, it looks to
me that this leads to a situation where to be valid, some pipelines
need to declare their outputs, while others do not. I think this will
create some confusion, as a pipeline author can't just look at the
outputs declared on the pipeline (maybe written by someone else) to
know what the outputs of that pipeline is.

I think Douglas Crockford was saying that if you take all the typing
that an average programmer does in a year, you could condensate it in
1 day. This to say, that as a goal, I value code clarity more than
code terseness. When dealing with "reusable components" such as
classes, functions, or pipelines, explicitly declaring what the
interface of that "reusable component" is seems in general to be a
good idea.

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT