Re: XMLPipe model: should we change the name?
Michael Pediaditakis wrote:Hmm... thanx.. t12nPipe (that's amazing).
The problem is that TransformationPipe is like having transformations flow
through the pipes (we could say TransformationPipeline.. which is too long though).
In that case I could keep the XMLPipe name and avoid changing vast amounts of (crapy Java) code!
Well, the difference is that I'm not a company ...a poor research student instead.. and I used the original XMLPipe
name when I created a simple pipelining program to help me with some experiments.. and it was interesting, and thus
I created a generic model for pipelines, device neutral handling etc etc which was based on the original XMLPipe
implementation. So there was never a formal name anyway!
My approach is to introduce a generic "context" information which is shared between different transformations.
A part of this context is the "pipeline context" which can be used to pass parameters to the stylesheets either
from the user or from stylehseets earlier in the pipeline.
This becomes quite a problem when the architecture is not XSLT specific, where the "general purpose" context
information has to be tranformed to an XSL-T form. I'm currently between two basic approaches:
- Either pass it as XSLT variable information (i.e. normal XSLT user parameters)
- Or pass it as part of the document
(the 2nd approach seems more interesting because it provides a unified framework for
bi-directional communication - so that the stylesheet can also modify the context)
When the implementation is finished and after I try both of the approaches I'll post the results!
Thanks for the comments, Mike.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format