- From: Edwin de Jong <e.dejong@exxellence.nl>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:51:15 +0100
- To: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com>
- CC: David <dlee@calldei.com>, "vojtech.toman@emc.com" <vojtech.toman@emc.com>, "xproc-dev@w3.org" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Op 1-11-2010 15:12, Philip Fennell schreef: > > Now, if you were looking for a means of explicitly defining that the > two steps were to run sequentially then, as I’ve suggested previously, > I believe you could build an XProc processor that supported the use of > SMIL Timesheets to indicate whether steps should execute either > sequentially or in parallel: ... > > Interesting idea. I stumbled upon similar problems a couple of weeks ago while trying to serialize a couple of home-brew database steps and http-request steps. Although explicitly defining the order of steps would be an option, I was reasoning a more functional programming language design for I/O, such as Haskells Monads [1] to make it possible to compose multiple I/O operations. The problems with XProc serialization seems to be a genuine concern, as all the current solutions could be seen as kludges. [1] Simon L. Peyton Jones, Philip Wadler - Imperative functional programming (1993) - http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/imperative/imperative.ps) Met vriendelijke groet, Edwin de Jong Exxellence Group | www.exxellence.nl Bezoekadres: Welbergweg 80-84 | 7556 PE Hengelo (ov.) Postadres: Postbus 768 | 7550 AT Hengelo (ov.) Tel. +31 (74) 25 94 008 | fax. +31 (74) 25 66 424
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:51:56 UTC