<snip content="a lot of good discussions that seem to have reached
tentative conclusions"/>
So an incomplete summary of what is currently being proposed is as follows:
-------
Sitemap
-------
Role: handles stateless needs (identified by URI)
Semantics:
Syntax:
Implementation:
-------
Flowmap
-------
Role: handles statefull needs (identified by URI with statefull encoding)
Semantics: procedural programming
Syntax:
Implementation: continuations
-------
Pipemap
-------
Role: handles the resources needed to construct a pipe
Semantics:
Syntax:
Implementation:
Currently I would argue that the Sitemap uses the semantics of procedural
programming, with the only difference being that the entry points are
defined as procedural matchers instead of as fixed function names.
Stefano, Berin, etc., could you fill in some of the blanks to help put
together a complete picture? Thanks!
I am still trying to find the time to demonstrate that logic-based
programming is the right way to handle assembling pipelines. My notion is
something very roughly like:
"/cocoon/hello.html"
requires "html-serializer(hello.html)"
"html-serializer(X)"
requires "converted-to-html(X)"
"converted-to-html(X)"
requires "load-from-disk(X)"
requires "xslt-apply(tabular-format.xsl)"
When a request comes in an inference engine would connect the stages
together to form the completed pipeline. The reason I like this is that it
avoids having a single individual responsible for hooking everything
together and making sure that all of the appropriate parameters are present,
variables set, etc. As a component developer all I have to do tell the
sitemap maintainer what my preconditions are and everything else is
automatic.
At least that's how I think it would work :)
Check out http://www.geocities.com/jiprolog/JIPConsole.html for a working
Java Prolog implementation.
Jason Foster
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
