RE: Transformative Programming: Flow-based, functional,and mor

I was thinking of this myself and perhaps its a profound misunderstanding ....

The correlation between when there is little tolerance for errors vs when specs are needed vs change .

In a pipeline say like

Outside World 1 -> my pipeline -> step a -> step b -> step c -> Outside World 2

Inside My World (step a, step b etc)  there may be very little tolerance for errors, because its a tightly controlled

situation and because the same person or group is maintaining the inputs and outputs.  It's not worth the effort and performance and development costs  to enforce data integrity at every step.

Its also a place where changes can and need to happen frequently.

This is where I would NOT bother with a schema.   Change should happen as needed and all parties would tend

to be closely communicating.   Less validation would be done, more expectation that data is already in the format needed,

and produce exactly what the next step wants.

Outside My World   (say the Big Input and Big Output) is where I would want schemas ...

say for example,  HL7 In, and HTML Out.

These are interfaces which I dont want to change often, where the parties involved may not be communicating closely,

where frequent change is a generally detrimental and a tight schema has the highest value to help make the process work

with the least risk.

I am not at all sure if this is entirely opposite of what Simon is saying or exactly the same thing but stated differently ...

----------------------------------------

David A. Lee

dlee@calldei.com

http://www.xmlsh.org

From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:36 PM
To: Simon St.Laurent
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: Transformative Programming: Flow-based, functional, and more