What is the deal with "pipelines" :-) (was Re: What is the deal with "blocks")

[Mark Lundquist <ml...@wrinkledog.com>]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:

> BTW: In sitemaps you have multiple usage of the term "pipeline": there 
> is the element <pipeline> which typically contains multiple matcher 
> with their own pipeline - so you have pipelines there. And inside of 
> act statements you have "internal" pipelines where at the same time 
> you can declare a <pipeline> as internal-only="true"... All a bit 
> confusing to me ;-)

Yes... informally we use the term "pipeline" all the time to mean 
"matcher or selector", which is different from the formal meaning of 
the sitemap <pipeline> (which is more like a network of pipes than a 
single pipe).  I've never been able come up with a satisfying 
unambiguous nomenclature.

I think at one point I was also considering trying to introduce the 
term "subpipeline" in some documentation that I haven't yet got around 
to writing.  I think I probably would have used that to to mean any 
sequence of components, where "pipeline" would have continued to mean a 
full pipeline that originates with generation and terminates with 
serialization.

If my proposed new matching language for the sitemap catches on, then 
there will be no more <select>, so we could just start using the term 
"matchers" for some of the things we today refer to colloquially as 
"pipelines".

The language "internal pipeline" for <act> is probably a poor choice of 
wording, "subpipeline" is probably better.  BTW these are no different 
than the subpipelines (to use my new term) inside a nested matcher or 
selector (or resource).

stuff to think about... :-)
—ml—

Re: What is the deal with "pipelines" :-) (was Re: What is the deal with "blocks")

[Mark Lundquist <lu...@gmail.com>]

On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> You might find this useful.
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101053457412921

Yes I do :-).  I haven't had a chance to go through it to any depth, 
but IMHO this is about the level of formalism that we need from the 
user documentation standpoint.  Just to have a consistent, well-defined 
and documented nomenclature would be great.

—ml—

Re: What is the deal with "pipelines" :-) (was Re: What is the deal with "blocks")

[Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>]

Mark Lundquist wrote:
> 
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
> 
>> BTW: In sitemaps you have multiple usage of the term "pipeline": there 
>> is the element <pipeline> which typically contains multiple matcher 
>> with their own pipeline - so you have pipelines there. And inside of 
>> act statements you have "internal" pipelines where at the same time 
>> you can declare a <pipeline> as internal-only="true"... All a bit 
>> confusing to me ;-)
> 
> Yes... informally we use the term "pipeline" all the time to mean 
> "matcher or selector", which is different from the formal meaning of the 
> sitemap <pipeline> (which is more like a network of pipes than a single 
> pipe).  I've never been able come up with a satisfying unambiguous 
> nomenclature.

You might find this useful.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101053457412921


Vadim