Re: Legibility, repetition, nesting

Hi David,

Why is it necessary at all to use <xsl:choose> ?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:03 AM David Birnbaum djbpitt@xxxxxxxxx <
xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear XSL-list,
>
> I write here for advice about Best Practice. The question is at the end;
> because I am constitutionally unable to be concise, the long narrative
> before it is context.
>
> I'm developing an XSLT stylesheet that processes 134 different types of
> items (same generic identifier, distinguished by an attribute value). For
> each item, regardless of type, I create several variables, do an
> <xsl:copy>, and inside that first create some other content that is common
> to all items, regardless of type, and then use <xsl:choose> to handle the
> types differently, according to their idiosyncrasies. I began by
> implementing this as a single template with a long <xsl:choose> deeply
> nested inside it, which has the advantage of avoiding unnecessary
> repetition, since the shared operations are outside the <xsl:choose>. It
> works, but perfectionism is a terrible curse ...
>
> Perhaps I'm being arbitrarily fastidious, but the <xsl:choose> inside the
> deep nesting feels awkward; I wind up with one template that runs to more
> than a thousand lines, where the <xsl:choose> is seven levels deep. This
> made me wonder whether off-loading the type-specific tasks to separate
> templates or functions, which could be called from the appropriate place,
> would keep the main template down to a more manageable size. Specifically,
> I'd like to be able to put the code blocks currently inside of the
> <xsl:when> statements somewhere other than deep inside a single main
> template.
>
> One implementation of this approach that works, but comes with its own
> issues, is using an <xsl:next-match> with auxiliary lower-priority
> templates that match item[@type eq 'x']. This lets me break out the
> type-specific code into separate templates. The reason this is not wholly
> satisfactory is that I have to pass all of the variables into these
> separate templates as parameters, so I wind up repeating the same
> <xsl:param> statements inside each of the secondary templates. That much
> repetition feels suboptimal.
>
> The only approach that occurs to me that might simultaneously eliminate
> repetition and avoid putting all of the processing inside a single
> thousand-line template, most of which is the <xsl:choose> with all of the
> type-specific handling inside <xsl:when> children, is to put the
> type-specific processing into separate files, with an <xsl:when> root, and
> then <xsl:include> them inside the <xsl:choose>. One downside seems to be
> that they will not be valid XSLT (they wonbt have the necessary wrapper
> boilerplate and the variables they use wonbt be defined inside them),
which
> I think I could overcome by using an <oXygen/> "master document", which
> would cause them to be validated in context. That isn't ideal, since it's
> tied to a specific development environment, but since that happens to be my
> usual development environment, the objection is philosophical (= can be
> ignored in the interest of Getting The Job Done), rather than practical.
>
> So: Is there a Best Practice approach to breaking out the type-specific
> treatment of the different types of items that avoids both 1) unnecessary
> repetition and 2) embedding a single thousand-line <xsl:choose>, which
> contains all of the type-specific operations, seven levels deep inside a
> template?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> XSL-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list>
> EasyUnsubscribe <http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/782854> (by
> email <>)
>


--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
biggest mistake of all
------------------------------------
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
-------------------------------------
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-------------------------------------
Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write
all patents, too? :)
-------------------------------------
Sanity is madness put to good use.
-------------------------------------
I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.