I think the cases where the change would make a functional difference or impact performance would be quite rare, unless you commonly have processors or pipelines that leave _all_ their declared outputs hanging.
Also, the idea is not to blindly run _every_ processor. For example, only the p:when or p:otherwise block that is chosen would be "executed".
There is clearly more thinking to do around this :-)
-Erik
Damon Rand wrote: > Hi there, > +1 for leaving the XPL spec the way it is now. ;-) > > Using a null-serializer to force a processor to be read is good > because then the programmer explicitly controls the exact behavior > of the pipeline. Isn't there also a situation where a <choose> can > decide whether to read the output of one processor or another at > runtime? In this situation you certainly wouldn't want a processor > to be executed even if it is never read.
>>We had a fair amount of debate around this, and maybe it would make >>sense to give processors that declare outputs which are not >>connected a chance to execute as well. Because of the policy of lazy >>evaluation of pipelines, this wouldn't necessarily solve, for >>example, the case of an XSLT transformer which is not connected. It >>would be up to each processor implementation to determine whether it >>has a side effect and to execute or not. I think this would make >>sense.
_______________________________________________ oxf-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.orbeon.com/mailman/listinfo/oxf-users
