W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > March 2011

Re: State of XProc: language and community

From: Tony R. <tony@gonk.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:16:51 -0500
Cc: "Christopher.R.Ball" <christopher.r.ball@gmail.com>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C5DB95AE-41AE-4F25-BDCF-AD3EDB0D3001@gonk.net>
To: Alex Muir <alex.g.muir@gmail.com>

On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Alex Muir wrote:

> One thing I wonder about is the memory limitations in Calabash and the whole concept of being able to save and use data from any step that occurred previously; If they are related and if that requirement has any effect on an efficient means to implement getting some data that is processed elsewhere?
> 
> Would an xproc that forced the developer to store data in some fast data storage in memory server and thus put,get,wait for data make for a much easier to develop straight forward low memory use pipeline from a programming perspective?
> 
> The files that are available on the data server could be accessed by some associated name or id or kept in different structures like a stack or queue. Red black tree based on some sort from xslt/xpath and easily accessed by any pipeline with some varying get calls depending on the situation...
> 
> <get position="last()" storageList="FileQueueOne"/>
> <get position="#TOP" storageList="FileStackABC"/>
> 
> Mainly I'm wondering if restricting the pipeline language to work like that would make any difference to the efficiency of the software written to handle the spec? Perhaps the spec allows for such an implementation already however I do wonder if the language would become more simplified. 

<ramble>
Whoa.  I'm afraid most of that is above my head.  :)  

I understand the importance of balancing usability (for humans) with process-ability (for XProc engines), and I try to keep both in mind as best I can.  I like learning about the processing side when I can, but it's mostly dabbling.  My brain just leans towards usability and human-friendly emphasis.  Can't help it.  
</ramble>


> I think what has been developed thus far is great btw. I use xproc every day in my work and I like it and have high regards for those supporting it. Certainly I hold the view that xproc is great generally.

Oh, totally!

I certainly hope that my original post did not come off as cynical or that I have a low opinion of XProc.  On the contrary, it's precisely because I care so much about XProc that I was moved enough to bother writing up my thoughts on the state of things.  

XProc is still so very young, and as it grows I want it to do so in a healthy way.  (God, I sound like a parent!  How bizarre and unlikely! ☺ )

—Tony
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 13:17:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 13:17:45 GMT