Re: XMLPipe model: should we change the name?

Play the video

Subject: Re: XMLPipe model: should we change the name?
From: Michael Pediaditakis <mp49@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:09:33 +0000

And since we are talking about it, some additional thoughts:

My point of view is that a traditional pipeline is not sufficient. Specifically, I think that a static pipeline with a number of processing steps is not adequate for some cases. The processing order should probably depend on the document structure as well.


E.g. if we have a tranformation that handled an <import> element (with
functionality similar to XML Inclusions) and we have other tranformations
that might generate additional <import> elements. In that case a simple
static pipeline is not sufficient.

E.g. think of a document

<document>
 <someData>Data1</someData>
 <import ref="url1"/>
</document>

where "url1" is an XML document with the following information
<someData>Data2</someData>

and if there is a different transformation that handles the <someData> tags which also generates more import statements (lets say the the first someData tag will be transformed to an <import ref="url2"/>.

If we use the following (which is the reasonable way to do it, methinks)
  Import transformation
  SomeData transformation

the final result will be something in terms of:
<document>
  <import ref="url2"/>
  <data2FinalRepresentation/>
</document>

which is not what we want..

If we have the data handler first, the result will still not be fully transformed (the same as before actually):

<document>
  <import ref="url2"/>
  <data2FinalRepresentation/>
</document>

However, if the pipeline was autmatically constructed according to the document structure, the import transformation could be applied sufficient times to get rid of all the "import" elements. I think that the only problem with such an approach is that it is extremely slow, since the whole document structure has to be investigated in order to construct the proper tranformation pipeline.

Mike (sharing his thoughts, which might be quite crap as well :)

P.S. Sorry for the crapy XML in this post!

XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread

Re: XMLPipe model: should we change the name?, (continued)
- Michael Pediaditakis - Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:04:06 -0500 (EST) <=
  - S Woodside - Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:44:05 -0500 (EST)
- Paul Brown - Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:07:01 -0500 (EST)

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: XMLPipe model: should we , Michael Pediaditakis	Thread	Re: XMLPipe model: should we , S Woodside
Re: replace jsp with xsl's, Ritu	Date	Re: XMLPipe model: should we , S Woodside
	Month

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

RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

XML Editor - Download a 15 Day Free Trial Now >

See What's New in Stylus Studio >

Buy Stylus Studio - XML Editor - Now >