Re: What is passed between processes?

But should this error handling mechanism be run as a pre-processing step 
or should we allow to run all processing steps until finding an 
unsupported processing component? I'm not sure if there's a benefit in 
executing partially a pipeline.


Erik Bruchez wrote:
> Fang, Andrew wrote:
>> I was actually thinking about a fall back mechanism here. Custom
>> component should specify a fallback that must be implemented by all
>> pipeline implementations. It could be as simple as passing the
>> information along without any processing.
> I wonder how many use cases would actually benefit from this. I would 
> think that in most situations you would simply be in a "fatal error" 
> type of scenario. Consider simply an XSLT transformation you want to 
> perform: if you don't have an XSLT transformation component available, 
> your task simply cannot be executed. What sense does it make to pass the 
> information unmodified?
> Maybe the right way of looking at this suggestion is for its proponents 
> to provide concrete use cases that would benefit from a fallback mechanism.
> Alternatively, a generic error (exception) handling mechanism could take 
> care of the issue, assuming the absence of a component is handled as a 
> runtime error.
> -Erik

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:49:16 UTC