- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:43:58 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 21:44:06 UTC
On 4/30/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | It occurs to me that now we are processing a sequence of document in > | many steps, it could be interesting to interupt the processing at some > | points > | > | I imagine that we can put the "interuptible" step in a try/catch and > | throw an error > | > | But what about, especially in p:for-each of a p:break element ? > > I'm not sure that fits our processing model very well. I don't see why ? I can easily > imagine having all the branches of a for-each executing in parallel; hum...how do you ensure the order on the output ?? you need to make the process end in good order Worse : what if you use p:http-request inside the for-each ? And if you put a try catch ? what would break mean then? It mean all the process that have been started after should be interupted Mohamed > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 21:44:06 UTC