Uli Mayring wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> > I'm perfectly aware of the fact that components must pass information
> > one another, but, why in hell should they use something so ackword as
> > SAX events to write and XPath queries to read when they can simply do an
> > hashtable lookup?
>
> Good point. But, if I may ask, why have different communication protocols
> at all?
Perfectly agreed. In fact TCP/IP showed you don't need more than a good
one. :)
Have you seen BLOAT? it's an april fool's RFC about 'TCP/IP over XML'.
It's a *very funny* read (don't remember the RFC right now).
My impression is that we are doing the same thing here as well.
> I can think of many practical reasons (performance,
> maintainability etc.), but from an architectural point of view it only
> makes sense if there are different concerns and different users. We tailor
> the communication protocols to the task and to the audience.
Sure.
> But can it be that the audience for meta-information and SAX events is the
> same?
This is a good question, but I personally don't think so.
I mean: from the use cases that were proposed about pipe-aware
selection, the selection was almost always performed on 'augmented data'
inserted by a transformer right before selection.
This 'augmented data' is, almost always, metadata that drives the
further selection.
It's clearly a communication between a direct component (acting 'in' the
pipe) and an indirect component (acting 'on' the pipe).
Passing information from direct to indirect components 'inside the pipe'
it's, IMO, wrong and unnecessary.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
