Re: [xsl] What's your visual metaphor for XSL Transformations?

["Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

> sorry I didn't read your post as meaning a transformation that takes
> however long it needs to complete its calculation.

The example provided is of a transformation that does not do a single
calculation only -- it performs as many calculations as someone needs
it to, so it can repeat doing so for an indefinitely long period. It
is not the transformation that "issues the stop signal".

In fact, it is not the user that waits for the transformation to stop
-- it is the transformation that waits for the user to (tell it to)
stop.


> By the way, I don't know if you took it as such but this was not meant
> to be an attack on using XSL-T for innovative things it is supposed
> generally not meant for, especially as I have probably done quite a
> bit of that, it was looking to see if you had some examples I wasn't
> aware of. I am aware of FXSL and follow it quite a bit.

Thank you. I am aware of your interest in FXSL.

Let me assure everyone that FXSL would only benefit from any comments
and suggestions for new functionality. The project team is doing
exactly this and any new feedback is very welcome.



--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play


On 3/23/07, bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/23/07, bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Okay 2 things here;
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > I would like the examples of these things. Not because I don't believe
> > > they exist but because I would like to see if there are some I hadn't
> > > thought of before (is this 2.0 we're talking about, probably give lots
> > > more examples that way)
> >
> > You are not saying exactly which "these things".
>
> I guess I meant: >   People are seriouly considering XSLT
> transformations that implement
> > fundamenal (and non-stop) server-side logic.
> I inferred non-stop to mean a transformation that was running
> continually, not one that was started with each GET for example
>
> > There are plenty of XSLT 1.0 examples of useful transformations that
> > do not need/use a source xml document.
> >
> > Take for example Jeni's famous stylesheets that you have to
> > double-click on their names in Windows Explorer in order to get them
> > going.
>
> Okay haven't seen these but I suppose that it is done with the
> processing instruction with the stylesheet calling itself. This is a
> nice hack yes, but by my definition of input document it still needs
> an input document.
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > To be more precise, it is a transformation that can be *unlimited, or
> > indefinite* in time, not the transformation engine.
>
> sorry I didn't read your post as meaning a transformation that takes
> however long it needs to complete its calculation. From your language
> I assumed a transformation that was never assumed to stop, that ran
> forever and output a stream of markup. Let's say a Jabber bot that
> runs against itself. Of course I immediately thought, well that might
> cause problems.
>
>
> > > > Just to repeat:
> > > >
> > > >   There are no technical or practical reasons why a transformation
> > > > should not be unlimited in time.
>
> the practical reasons have to do with what your hardware or processor
> can handle I suppose, or maybe how long a human being can wait to get
> the result of a calculation, but I agree that unlimited when meaning
> until the calculation is complete is fine, unlimited when assumed to
> mean running continually would be something different.
>
> By the way, I don't know if you took it as such but this was not meant
> to be an attack on using XSL-T for innovative things it is supposed
> generally not meant for, especially as I have probably done quite a
> bit of that, it was looking to see if you had some examples I wasn't
> aware of. I am aware of FXSL and follow it quite a bit.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen