- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:10:04 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m2hc0j4b03.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes: > For example, I dont belive XProc has any semantics to say "Wait until any > one of pipelines A,B or C completes then execute D, canceling the 2 which > did not complete first. Indeed it doesn't. > It would definately be nice to have this feature but I could see why the > authors wouldnt want to go down that path (atleast for V1) ... It adds a lot > of complexity to both the specs and the implementation. Also the common > use cases for this kind of control parallelism I'm not so sure are the > common use cases for xproc (yet). Workflow parallisims (say in BPEL) often > from the need to control tasks which have external triggers, for example it > may be very critical to say "Wait until an invoice is either paid or > rejected or until 30 days elapse", when its (imho) not so critical to say > "Wait until either the xslt or xquery is finished.". Right. I don't see XProc pipelines and complex process orchestration processes as being in the same problem space. I can imagine (just) how XProc might someday grow to have those features, but I have a harder time seeing them as being in the 80% of the problem space we're tackling. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you run after wit you will succeed http://nwalsh.com/ | in catching folly.-- Montesquieu
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 15:10:47 UTC