New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open questions in p:try #639

Closed
xml-project opened this Issue Nov 14, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@xml-project
Contributor

xml-project commented Nov 14, 2018

I think apart from #632 we should take another look at the section on p:try.

  1. The section states, that the output ports of a p:try are the union of all declared output ports of the alternative subpipelines. What are the output ports of a p:try if no alternative declares an output port?
  2. The example in p:try still has a p:group child.
  3. It is not said what happens, if two alternative subpipelines declare an output port with the same name but different values for @content-types. I think the answer should be, that the output port on the p:try is a union of these content-types.
  4. It is state that " if any subpipeline has a primary output port, even implicitly, every subpipeline must have exactly the same primary output port." I think we need to introduce a static error if this rule is violated.
  5. (Related to non-step wrappers): Compound steps like p:group or p:for-each get an implicitly declared (unnamed) output port. The example suggests that this is also true for the initial subpipeline and p:catch, but is said nowhere.

If you find further questions/problems concerning p:try please add them to this issue.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

xml-project commented Nov 17, 2018

Another point: Suppose there is a dynamic error raised in p:catch. Is the p:finally pipeline executed before the error bubble up? I think it should, so I can clear local resources before the error is caught further up the tree.

@ndw ndw self-assigned this Nov 30, 2018

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ndw commented Nov 30, 2018

I think we've resolved your second comment.

I'll look at the other issues asap.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

xml-project commented Nov 30, 2018

I think we've resolved your second comment.
+1

I'll look at the other issues asap.
+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment