W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > November 2010

Re: How to run unconnected steps in sequence?

From: Edwin de Jong <e.dejong@exxellence.nl>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:51:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4CCED3E3.3070107@exxellence.nl>
To: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com>
CC: David <dlee@calldei.com>, "vojtech.toman@emc.com" <vojtech.toman@emc.com>, "xproc-dev@w3.org" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
  Op 1-11-2010 15:12, Philip Fennell schreef:
>
> Now, if you were looking for a means of explicitly defining that the 
> two steps were to run sequentially then, as I’ve suggested previously, 
> I believe you could build an XProc processor that supported the use of 
> SMIL Timesheets to indicate whether steps should execute either 
> sequentially or in parallel: ...
>
>
Interesting idea. I stumbled upon similar problems a couple of weeks ago 
while trying to serialize a couple of home-brew database steps and 
http-request steps. Although explicitly defining the order of steps 
would be an option, I was reasoning a more functional programming 
language design for I/O, such as Haskells Monads [1] to make it possible 
to compose multiple I/O operations. The problems with XProc 
serialization seems to be a genuine concern, as all the current 
solutions could be seen as kludges.

[1] Simon L. Peyton Jones, Philip Wadler - Imperative functional 
programming (1993) - 
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/imperative/imperative.ps)



Met vriendelijke groet,

Edwin de Jong


Exxellence Group | www.exxellence.nl
Bezoekadres: Welbergweg 80-84 | 7556 PE Hengelo (ov.)
Postadres: Postbus 768 | 7550 AT Hengelo (ov.)
Tel. +31 (74) 25 94 008 | fax. +31 (74) 25 66 424
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:51:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 November 2010 14:51:57 GMT