[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@gmail.com> [2005-04-21 16:22]:
> On 4/21/05, Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@engrm.com> wrote:
> > * M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@gmail.com> [2005-04-21 14:27]:
> > > Alan, out of curiosity have you spent any time studying Norman Walsh's
> > > SXPipe project?
> > >
> > > from the first paragraph of http://norman.walsh.name/2004/06/20/sxpipe:
> > >
> > > "SXPipe is a language for building Simple XML Pipelines and a Java
> > > toolkit that implements it. This is hardly a new idea; a quick web
> > > search will turn up a number of similar projects. I've written
> > > elsewhere about why I did it and why I think pipelines are important.
> > > This essay just describes SXPipe."
> >
> > Yup. Relay/Varsity is a little more advanced that SXPipe. SXPipe, IIRC,
> > moves documents from one process to the next, while Relay will
> > link streams to streams, without materialization. It will
> > materialize documents as needed, for an XSLT processor for example.
> >
> > Norman can correct me, but I think SXPipe was a proof of
> > concept, and he left it at that stage.
> >
> > Relay/Varsity includes caching of documents, caching of
> > partially configured processors (i.e. compiled XSLT transforms),
> > and a straight-forward dependency mechanism, that cause
> > dependenices to be inherited from cached documents, and across
> > pipelines.
> >
> > Relay/Varisty is much smaller than Cocoon, and has far fewer
> > dependencies. It is easy to add a processor to Relay by
> > implementing a few well defined interfaces. Confiugration via
> > the Varisty container is done using constructor or setter
> > injection, specified in an XML file. Caching is pretty much
> > automatic, as are dependencies, if you use stock protocols.
> >
> > Can't compare to Obreon OXF, since I've not worked with it. Last
> > I checked it was proprietary, but it turns out they released it
> > open souce back in August.
> :D It seems that the entire point of SXPipe was not to see how much
> it could be and instead how much it could do with the minimal amount
> of features possible. He definitely did an excellent job of
> showcasing that power can exist within a framework even a minimalist
> would have had a tough time adjusting to.... which ironically would
> have showcased that even a minimalist is able to cut a few more things
> out of his/her life and still get by just fine :)
I'm only noting that there isn't a major SXPipe implementation
out there. I'm not making a comment about it's design or
suitability of purpose. I'm not saying more is better. I'm not
trying to phatten my cat, either. It is a tough call to decide
what stays and goes.
Also, the concept has come to focus more on dependencies and
caching than pipelining, per se.
I guess, I counldn't find what I was looking for when I needed
it, and once I got into writing my own, I didn't have time to
pour over the standards and happendings of the community.
> I will definitely be watching the flipside "PhatKatt" you have planned
> as it this could very easily prove that the minimalistic approach is
> more than just a lifestyle... its a trendy lifestyle that gets old and
> boring and has been given the boot... apparently a hard boot in this
> case .
My web site is implemented in Relay/Varisty, so watch that. I'll
have other sample applications that will be illustrative.
I'm working on a generic Servlet as an obvious application of
the software.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
