Subject: RE: [xsl] Let's face it: side effects are sometimes necessary! From: "Dion Houston" <dionh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:39:53 -0800 |
See below... -----Original Message----- From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:25 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] Let's face it: side effects are sometimes necessary! <snip> Let me tickle a bit: you don't agree with the subject line, but how do you suppose one could use XSLT to execute a transaction in an information system? By definition this is using side- effects. XML driven JDBC calls through XSLT is where I find the best use of XSLT right now (I'm not a web-designer, but a passionate XSLT user.) - OK, I'll bite... why do transactions "by definition" require side effects? I've written a prototype web server in XSLT with C# extensions. These extensions only fetch the next web request, and send back a response. My "web server" operates in a completely stateless matter, simply by taking XML from the request, applying templates, and piping the result tree fragment over the wire. It is therefore completely stateless and side effect free, and still handles transactions just fine. Now I will freely admit that this is not an industrial strength application, but I do not see anything about transaction processing that requires side effects... Dion XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Let's face it: side effec, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Let's face it: side effec, Gunther Schadow |
Re: [xsl] Let's face it: side effec, Gunther Schadow | Date | Re: [xsl] Let's face it: side effec, Gunther Schadow |
Month |