> On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 01:54 PM, Mike Chamberlain wrote: > <snip> > > Now caching becomes simply a layer in this structure... > > > > eg CACHE( XSLT2( XSLT1( XSP() ) ) > > > > or for incremental caching.... > > > > CACHE( XSLT2( CACHE( XSLT1( CACHE( XSP() ) ) ) ) ) > > > > or for Logicsheets... > > > > CACHE( XSLT2( CACHE( XSLT1( CACHE( XSP( CACHE( XSLT( > XML() ) ) ) > > ) ) ) > > ) ) > > This is essentially what is being done currently. The only exception > is that currently the system uses a push model rather than your > proposed pull model. The choice is probably arbitrary
I think the differences in the implementation details mean it's a lot more than arbitary. The pull model makes a pipeline based cache implementation trivial. > - although I > think a pull model would be harder to implement due to dependancies > being discovered during processing (rather than predetermined). I I don't see why that is. The pipeline can still be predetermined, you just can't modify it so easily once it's created. ie insert_last_stylesheet(). Mike.
