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

Re: How to add more transports/protocols to XProc?

From: Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:09:07 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikYvYqtEwUgTYAj8_sb+Wsm4mQpBS7HruYgLK+P@mail.gmail.com>
To: vojtech.toman@emc.com, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
>From the spec: "It is not a goal of XProc that it should be a
general-purpose pipeline language for manipulating arbitrary, non-XML
resources."

Could XProc 2.0 be a "general purpose pipeline language"? What general
purpose pipeline (XML-)languages are available?
I like to think of XProc as a sort of XML-batch-script language, although
that might not have been its intention...

Jostein

2011/3/15 <vojtech.toman@emc.com>

> I think I should maybe describe my own personal perspective when it comes
> to XProc. In my view, XProc is first and foremost an XML processing language
> in the same family as XSLT and XQuery. I like to think of an XProc pipeline
> as an XSLT stylesheet on steroids if you will: you have some input data and
> you have a recipe of how to process/transform it. That is the main thing for
> me.
>
>
>
> Then you have the additional features of XProc. For instance, the
> extensibility mechanism that allows you to very naturally integrate with all
> sorts of external tools and include them in the processing pipeline. This is
> a very nice feature, which, when used correctly and *judiciously*, can be of
> great benefit.
>
>
>
> Personally, I wouldn’t recommend using XProc as some kind of enterprise
> middle-ware component, for the same reasons that I wouldn’t recommend using
> XSLT for this.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Vojtech
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Vojtech Toman
>
> Consultant Software Engineer
>
> EMC | Information Intelligence Group
>
> vojtech.toman@emc.com
>
> http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
>
>
>
> *From:* xproc-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xproc-dev-request@w3.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Alex Muir
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:03 PM
> *To:* Alam Sher
> *Cc:* Conal Tuohy; xproc-dev@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: How to add more transports/protocols to XProc?
>
>
>
> "There is no persistence context in XProc either, consider a scenario where
> I could serialize the state of a pipeline and invoke it after a  long
> running task would have finished, may be raise an event and a pipeline step
> could have been registered to listen to a special ‘Event (Event ID)’ port
> for later invocation?"
>
> --
> Bunch of question comes to mind if anyone has some time...
>
> A. What are the priorities of XProc?
>
>
> B. Given a company that sucks in a lot of data, standardizes it in XML,
> manipulates it in various departments, and spits it as a product on various
> outputs. What should the following list look like if adjusted to be
> accurate?
>
> 1. Communication
> 2. Streaming -- or perhaps better to say fast and efficient
> 3. Extensibility
> 4. Bunch of easier to implement stuff?
>
> C. Would a data storage-in-memory-communication system (SIMC)  which sends
> messages, to whatever is listening, that a new file of some id/class has
> been put/get data and queried as to what data is available with the option
> of saving files not used much to a solid state disk/db be useful tool for
> xproc?
>
> D. Would an XProc designed to be used solely with a SIMC simplify the
> language, why or why not?
>
> E. Would communication be greatly simplified as you could store any data or
> message on this SIMC and easily access it asynchronously?
>
> F. What is the most simple way to handle the most complex Xproc?
>
> Regards
> Alex
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 12:50:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 March 2011 12:50:10 GMT