Michael Melhem wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm -1 on such a severe back incompatible change for a simple naming reason. That would be a great way to piss people off (at least, I would be)On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:21:36AM -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:Michael Melhem wrote:On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:48:15AM -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:Carsten Ziegeler wrote:Yes generally "pipe" is a noun...but how about "to pipe something through"
Michael Melhem wrote:... the only problem being that also pipe is a noun, it does not mean "somebody who makes pipelines". Currently, generator is "somebody who generates", transformer is "somebody who transforms", etc.
I recall suggesting map:pipe in an earlier discussion because it
would confirm to "noun-verb" convention that already exists in the sitemap.
But "pipe" noun does not describe an actor, "pipe" is passive... "Piper" could be better but it means "somebody who plays pipe"...
in this context it would be a verb ....
... this will result in "pipe" (n) - "pipe" (v) pair ... we made a circle :) So, options for the pair are: pipeline - pipeline (existing) pipe - pipeline pipeline - pipe processor - process piper - pipe ... Other suggestions?
I was actually thinking:
<components>
<map:matchers>
</map:matchers>
<map:pipelines>
<map:pipeline/>
</map:pipelines>
</components>
..
<map:pipes>
<map:pipe>
<map:act>
<map:match>
...
</map:pipe>
<map:pipe>
</map:pipe>
</map:pipes>
thats my suggestion anyway :)
Besides, I already explained why <pipe> as a component and <pipeline> as a sitemap concept make sense and keep back compatibility.
Sitemap 1.1 should be extending Sitemap 1.0, not provide any back-incompatible change, otherwise this is really sitemap 2.0 and I woundn't like that.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]