W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2012

RE: Revisiting "fixing parameters"

From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:13:10 -0500
To: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F3C7EBECE80AC346BE4D1C5A9BB4A41F2F37CC1A7B@MX11A.corp.emc.com>
> That's definitely interesting. One question that I have immediately is
> which end of the connection specifies inheritance.
> Does the pipeline specify that it's parameters are inherited down or do
> the steps specify that they inherit from above? Or both?

I was thinking about that, too. I ended up with inheriting down, but both ways might have their value:

- Inherit down: allows you to wrap a bunch of existing steps with a pipeline and make sure that the right things get automagically passed to those steps. 

- Inherit from above: allows for creating steps that auto-bind to the parent scope if needed.

As far as usability goes, I think that "inherit down" gives the pipeline author more control over the magic and less surprises than "inherit from above". My impression is that using 3rd party steps that rely on "inherit from above" might be akin to trying to walk through a mine field.


Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 15:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:51 UTC