Re: xproc as an alternative to Apache ant

Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> http://www.dpawson.co.uk/nodesets/entries/090524.html
>
> Just my thoughts. I'd appreciate yours.

My immediate thoughts, posted as a comment:

  XProc absolutely supports runtime options that can act like
  properties and variables in ant and bash. You can, with an
  (existing) extension step generate a pipeline and then evaluate it,
  but I really think you're making the whole process way more
  complicated than it needs to be. I will (hopefully this weekend)
  take a closer look at your ant setup and derive an equivalent XProc
  pipeline.

  There's already a p:exec step in XProc 1.0, so I don't think that's
  exactly out of scope.

  I don't think it would be unreasonable for p:http-request to
  support FTP uploading, though I haven't tried to make that work in
  XML Calabash. I'll put it on the list.

  I also don't see any problem with a px:zip step, though I'd want to
  think carefully about how it should work. Ideally it would allow you
  to both create new archives as well as update existing archives.

  I remain convinced that most of what you want to do is right in
  XProc's sweet spot. The parts that aren't are also entirely
  reasonable, with a few extensions.

  I don't mind using extensions. That will help the community learn
  what additional steps should be in the V.next standard. That strikes
  me as better than trying to put the kitchen sink in V1.0.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Does it worry you that you don't talk
http://nwalsh.com/            | any kind of sense?--Agda (TRATEOTU)