- From: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:00:25 -0400
- To: "'xproc-dev@w3.org'" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Hi Henry, Ah, I see. Very clever. Okay. I think that works. Thanks! I'll add this to my tutorial. /Roger > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:49 AM > To: Costello, Roger L. > Cc: 'xproc-dev@w3.org' > Subject: Re: Where's the parallelize step? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Costello, Roger L. writes: > > > I think there is a difference between: > > > > - an XProc processor recognizing that some > > steps can be run in parallel > > > > versus > > > > - a user creating an XML workflow, declaring > > that "steps A, B, C can be run in parallel > > with steps D, E, F" > > > > > > The former is an XProc processor optimization activity. The latter > > is a user modeling activity. > > > > I think that it is important for a user to be able to explicitly > > state in an XProc document "These two workflow activities > > (subpipelines) may be run in parallel." (Whether an XProc processor > > executes the subpipelines in parallel or serially is an > > implementation issue.) > > Hmm, I'm worried we still have a disconnect. > > If I write the following pipeline: > > <p:declare-step name="top"> > <p:input port="i1" primary="false"/> > <p:input port="i2" primary="false"/> > > <p:output port="o1" primary="false"> > <p:pipe step="sp1b" port="result"/> > </p:output> > > <p:output port="o2" primary="false"> > <p:pipe step="sp2b" port="result"/> > </p:output> > > <p:... name="sp1a"> > <p:input> > <p:pipe step="top" port="i1"/> > </p:input> > </p:...> > . . . > <p:... name="sp1b"> > . . . > </p:...> > > <p:... name="sp2a"> > <p:input> > <p:pipe step="top" port="i2"/> > </p:input> > </p:...> > . . . > <p:... name="sp2b"> > . . . > </p:...> > > </p:declare-step> > > do you think there is something that _prevents_ the two sub-pipelines > - From running in parallel if you _don't_ say they can? If so, I > believe that's a misreading of the spec. > > It is of course open to you to add > > <p:documentation>Note that the implicit subpipe beginning > with this step > and ending with step sp1b may run in parallel with > the implicit subpipe beginning with step > sp2a.</p:documentation> > > to sp1a, but we don't need a language change to make that possible. > > How is what you have in mind different from this? > > ht > - -- > Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University > of Edinburgh > Half-time member of W3C Team > 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) > 131 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without > it is forged spam] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFJ7G9IkjnJixAXWBoRAtjOAJsGSLFHB5wSsDxt1RYjW0I97C5CzgCdFcYz > 2w0GD7CuWUNeePCwcEXEn5g= > =guwj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 13:01:01 UTC