W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Where's the parallelize step?

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:10:04 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2hc0j4b03.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes:
> For example, I dont belive XProc has any semantics to say "Wait until any 
> one of pipelines A,B or C completes then execute D, canceling the 2 which 
> did not complete first.

Indeed it doesn't.

> It would definately be nice to have this feature but I could see why the 
> authors wouldnt want to go down that path (atleast for V1) ... It adds a lot 
> of complexity to both the specs and the implementation.   Also the common 
> use cases for this kind of control parallelism I'm not so sure are the 
> common use cases for xproc (yet).   Workflow parallisims (say in BPEL) often 
> from the need to control tasks which have external triggers, for example it 
> may be very critical to say "Wait until an invoice is either paid or 
> rejected or until 30 days elapse", when its (imho) not so critical to say 
> "Wait until either the xslt or xquery is finished.".

Right. I don't see XProc pipelines and complex process orchestration
processes as being in the same problem space. I can imagine (just) how
XProc might someday grow to have those features, but I have a harder
time seeing them as being in the 80% of the problem space we're
tackling.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you run after wit you will succeed
http://nwalsh.com/            | in catching folly.-- Montesquieu

Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 15:10:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 April 2009 15:10:48 GMT