Re: incremental processing

[Marshall Rose <mrose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> On 2002-06-04 I posted a question about incremental processing (content
> that is now contained in section 4.11):
> 
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00220.html
> 
> Given that there were no replies, I take it that section 4.11 is perceived
> to be uncontroversial. However, successful experience with bidirectional
> XML streams within the Jabber community provides fairly strong evidence
> that the following statements from section 4.11 are false or misleading:
> 
>    Note that incremental processing is difficult to implement if
>    interspersed across multiple interactions.  In other words, if a
>    protocol requires incremental processing across both directions of a
>    bidirectional stream, then it may place significant burden on
>    protocol implementers.
> 
> I again ask for clarification of these statements, since they would appear
> to cast aspersions on the use of stateful, bidirectional XML streams in
> the Jabber protocol, despite numerous successful implementations and
> deployments of that protocol.

hi. i believe that the statement above is accurate in light of your comments. specifically, it is hard to implement correctly. this doesn't say it shouldn't be done, merely that there's a greater coding burden than other approaches.

is there some other language you would prefer to see used?

/mtr