On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Greg Weinger wrote:
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it
features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
- pipeline1 -
/ \
request - A - X
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Greg Weinger wrote:
Tell me if this is different from what you're talking about: a
Transformer/Generator pair that acts like a combination of (modified)
FragmentExtractor and CInclude.
Say we have a MultiplexingTransformer [MT] in a pipeline like this:
Request
From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Greg Weinger wrote:
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it
features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?),
here
is the diagram:
-
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Greg Weinger wrote:
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it
features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?),
here
From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Tell me if this is different from what you're talking about: a
Transformer/Generator pair that acts like a combination of
(modified)
FragmentExtractor and CInclude.
Say we have a MultiplexingTransformer [MT] in a pipeline like this:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Greg Weinger wrote:
From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Tell me if this is different from what you're talking about: a
Transformer/Generator pair that acts like a combination of
(modified)
FragmentExtractor and CInclude.
Say we have a
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
My opinion is that developers are not yet taken correctly into account.
While the other three have a componentization which is sufficient for
their
part of work, developers suffer for the lack of it. Usually a developer
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
And this should be KISS?
Ok, so let me explain it from a sitemap view.
You can add a parameter parallel=true to make queries run simultaneously.
Simple enough?
In order to use something you have to understand how it works.
For a cocoon pipeline, the concept
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it
features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
- pipeline1 -
/ \
request - A - X - pipeline2 - X - C - response
From: Greg Weinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have another one, it provides different functionality but
it features similar approach.
As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
- pipeline1 -
/ \
request
-Original Message-
From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: is cocoon symmetry a holy grail?
From: Greg Weinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have another one, it provides different
Sorry, took me a while to respond.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
From: Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
-
From: Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
- pipeline1 -
/ \
request - A - X -
From: Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have another one, it provides different functionality but it features
similar approach. As I don't have a name for this (multiplexer?), here
is the diagram:
- pipeline1 -
/ \
request - A - X -
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
OT I like the subject :) /OT
This is explicitly provocative, but this is very important so here it
goes:
suppose we have implemented what Vadim proposed in the his earlier
thread: so 'separators' and a way to instruct the pipelines to
15 matches
Mail list logo
