[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Should the XPath working group add support for an impo

Subject: Should the XPath working group add support for an import capability?
From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:11:57 +0000
 Should the XPath working group add support for an impo
Hi Folks,

The new functionality in XPath 3.0 is very exciting.

With its new functionality one can create powerful XPath data structures,
functions (unfortunately not libraries, see below) and programs -- all written
in pure XPath.

Since XPath is highly portable the programs can be dropped into any language
that hosts XPath - XSLT, XQuery, Java, Perl, Python, etc.. That is fantastic.
Write once and reuse many times.

    Imagine a function library developer
    able to write just one set of functions,
    not two. The developer would save a
    massive amount of time and could use
    these savings in writing more functions
    in the library -- a bonus to everyone.

There is one problem, however.

The XPath programs must be monolithic (not modular). One cannot write program
A and then reuse it (import it) into program B.

    The current W3C XPath 3.0 specification
    does not include support for an "import"
    clause.

That non-modularity of XPath limits its usefulness.

I would like to see the XPath working group add modularity to the XPath
language.

Here are the advantages to doing so:

1. Develop once, reuse often. That results in time and cost savings.

2. Computer Scientist John Hughes, in his famous paper "Why Functional
Programming Matters" argues that "modularity is the key to successful
programming." Greater modularity in XPath would yield more successful
programs.

Here are the disadvantages to doing so:

1. It makes the language bigger. Vendors are less inclined to support XPath if
it is too big.

2. It is not in the XPath working group's requirements.  A new use-case /
requirement would have to be inserted into the XPath requirements /
use-cases.

What do you think, should the XPath working group add support for modularity
(i.e., add support for an import capability)?

If yes, now is the time to speak up. Also, if yes, should the XPath working
group add it to 3.0 or 3.1?

/Roger

Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.