- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:53:51 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> I had a chat about this general issue with Richard Tobin over lunch, > and here's my (possibly imperfect) attempt to reconstruct his > suggested approach: > > The problem that having up-to-date signatures for Vnext steps solves > for Vlast processors is, basically, what to do with steps it doesn't > really understand. So remove that problem directly. Don't rely on > p:choose or p:try/p:catch to manage compatible processing, which > amounts to doing it at the semantic level. Use C interop best > practice as your guide, and do it at the syntactic (== #ifdef) level. Interesting idea. But what about Vnext pipelines without the p:switch directives? As far as I understand it, p:switch would be a nice tool to ensure interoperability between between Vlast and Vnext processors. But what if I don't (because I never thought about it, or because I am lazy) use p:switch and pass my Vnext pipeline to a Vlast processor? Then we still have the basic problem we are trying to address here (unknown or different signatures of steps), right? Regards, Vojtech
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 12:54:37 UTC