- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:34:39 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Richard Tobin wrote: >> | I also want a single output to be >> | connectable to multiple steps' inputs, but we could have (conceptually >> | at least) a "tee" component that produces multiple copies of its >> | input. >> >> I think that's fine as long as they're labeled. I think we should make >> infosets immutable. That is, a process can transform A to produce B, >> but A still exists and hasn't been changed. > > Conceptually, yes. If two steps have the same infoset as input, then > one step shouldn't be able to change what the other one sees. In terms > of APIs, an implementation might want to make infosets mutable, in which > case it must provide separate copies. Sending one infoset to two steps > also has implications for streaming, of course. Yes. In XPL, we have decided to make infosets immutable: http://www.w3.org/Submission/xpl/#output-invariance This makes sense especially if you come from a "functional" background. I don't know if there is a real point of making them mutable. -Erik
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2006 23:37:08 UTC