Re: ease of use proposal - adding 'from' attribute to step to define connection

  Thanks Jim.  And no, I am not in a hurry :-)  Just a couple of points:

    - your 2d and 3d points are equally a "departure from using XML
structure to represent any single one info"; point 2 is using a
space-separated list of tokens in a string, instead of using a
repeatable element, whilst point 3 is using a special character to
separate both parts of a string as a pair of strings

    - there is already a syntax using exclusively XML structure to
represent information, and this is exactly what the syntax
simplification is looking at: providing an alternative to the verbose
XML syntax

  This is a perma-thread about XML data modelling.  The best example
of which, I believe, is the following question.  Is 2015-01-01 a
legitimate data type, or should it rather be
<date><year>2015</year><month>1</month><day>1</day></date>?

  As we have the XML structure approach already, offering an
alternative would just be listening to all people having been asking
for a simplification, for years.  That some people will not use it
should not prevent the simplification to happen.  If we were talking
about stopping developing the XML structured version, or reverting it
back, I could understand those concerns, but I think they are quite
irrelevant when discussing an alternative.

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/
http://h2oconsulting.be/


On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, James Fuller wrote:
> Hello Florent,
>
> To summarise;
>
> * @from attribute taking a step name (which denotes input from primary
> output port)  seems to have broad support. This @from attribute can
> live on the step as well as probably a p:input.
>
> * enumerating multiple step names (as Gerrit proposed) seems non controversial
>
> * some kind of way to address ports other then default primary output
> seems like a useful optimisation, but (as Paul mentions) it is a kind
> of departure, lets just wait and see where WG discussions bring us.
>
> So while first and second points seem likely to get through WG, I am
> less confident about getting agreement on a scheme (micro syntax) for
> addressing ports/step ... as I said I like your suggestion and will
> present to WG for consideration (along with alternates). Thanks for
> being patient.
>
> J
>
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 10:56, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
>> On 1 December 2014 at 08:47, James Fuller wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>> yes, I agree with your observations about the 'micro' syntax and its
>>> likely that getting that aspect (in result@mystep form) through the WG
>>> will be difficult and less likely.
>>
>>   I probably missed something, but I did not get this one.  What
>> exactly do you refer to by "micro syntax"?  Why is from="port@step"
>> adoption unlikely?
>>
>>   I thought the WG was looking at syntax simplification, and this one
>> looks like a very good one, and a rather easy one to define, as it is
>> mainly syntactic sugar, isn't it?
>>
>>   Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Florent Georges
>> http://fgeorges.org/
>> http://h2oconsulting.be/

Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 10:45:20 UTC