Re: [xsl] XMLPipe model: should we change the name?

Subject: Re: [xsl] 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

 <import ref="url1"/>

where "url1" is an XML document with the following information

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:
  <import ref="url2"/>

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):

  <import ref="url2"/>

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:

Current Thread