- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:17:56 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2eipdlpgr.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: >> I managed to convince myself that this wasn't actually a problem. Any >> attempt to evaluate an unknown step will raise an error, so unless the >> step occurs inside a p:when or the p:group of a p:try, the error can >> propogate upwards. In a p:when or p:try, you know the order because >> you have the other branches. > > I am not sure myself, but perhaps you are right. I'm no longer in favor of this approach, but just to complete the loop as it were... > I still have to think > about this. The biggest problem I have is that the V1 processor would > have to assume too many things when it encounters a V2 step. Consider > this pipeline: > > <p:pipeline> > <p:identity/> > <p:v2-step/> > </p:pipeline> > > Now, let's assume the pipeline is a valid V2 pipeline, with no static > errors. Then, in order to accept this pipeline statically, the V1 > processor must: > > 1. Assume that p:v2-step has a primary input port - otherwise err:XS0005 > (unconnected primary output port of p:identity) would be thrown > 2. Assume that p:v2-step has a primary output port - otherwise > err:XS0006 (primary output port of the pipeline not connected and the > last step in the subpipeline does not have a primary output port) I had a different approach in mind. The V1 processor sees p:v2-step: that's going to fail dynamically. It's not inside a try/catch or a choose/when, so the p:pipeline is going to fail dynamically as well. So just report the dynamic error statically and never bother to try to work out the flow graph. > We should be very careful here, and really look at different scenarious > where such kinds of assumptions may lead to unexpected behavior, or too > ambitious requirements on V1 implementations. Exactly. That's why I'm pulling back from this idea. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just http://nwalsh.com/ | is. And we dance to its music.--Richard | Dawkins
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 18:18:34 UTC