Re: Remove p:log?

I think we can drop p:log completely, because with 3.0, the XProc 
processor presumably stores valuable XML debugging information according 
to an injection spec and people can still use p:store-debug which is 
more flexible than p:log. To prevent code bloat, an injection spec might 
declare a log attribute with another namespace which you can attach to 
certain XProc elements.

best, Martin

Am 18.09.2017 um 15:14 schrieb Geert Bormans:
> Thanks Vojtech for the correction,
> we have discussed an "injection spec" not necessarily a framework
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Toman, Vojtech" <Vojtech.Toman@dell.com>
> Aan: "geert" <geert@gbormans.telenet.be>, "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> Cc: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
> Verzonden: Maandag 18 september 2017 15:09:19
> Onderwerp: RE: Remove p:log?
>
> +1 to the idea of an 'injection framework/spec'.
>
> Regards,
> Vojtech
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geert Bormans [mailto:geert@gbormans.telenet.be]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:00 PM
> To: XProc Dev
> Cc: Norman Walsh
> Subject: Re: Remove p:log?
>
> Hi Norm,
>
> If I remember well it is not just a matter of dropping p:log We sort of agreed that it should be removed from the core spec and moved to a yet to be discussed injection framework together with eg. validation of the result on a port, storage of intermediate results,...
> all driven by debug levels and user defined storage uri's...
> It would lead to cleaner pipelines with a more extensive power to do diagnostics without changing the actual pipeline, through using injection
>
> I believe that was discussed right before you arrived, so we might have been lacking proper reporting to you about it during the meeting.
>
> Not sure this bridges the gap correctly, I invite others to correct me if I am mistaken
>
> Cheers
>
> Geert
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
> Aan: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> Verzonden: Maandag 18 september 2017 13:50:52
> Onderwerp: Remove p:log?
>
> At the workshop, there seemed to be a consensus that p:log was something that no one used or, if they used it, it wasn’t very helpful.
>
> It’s kind of a wart on the language. I wonder if we should remove it.
>
> (As an implementor, I’m inclined to make it possible to dynamically select which ports to log without having to edit the pipeline and insert p:log statements.)
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676
> www.marklogic.com
>

Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 14:14:12 UTC