Re: Naming steps or naming outputs

Rui Lopes wrote:
> If this pipeline was written in a direct syntax, my pipeline processor 
> would have to know that an hypothetical <my:safeguard /> tag would 
> represent a step. However, if it doesn't recognize it, well... my cpu 
> would certainly melt! That wouldn't happen in a generic syntax.

I don't think changing <my:safeguard/> to <p:step type="my:safeguard"/>
is going to keep your CPU from melting.  The pipeline processor has to
know what my:safeguard means in either case.  As such, the burden is the
same.

I think the main issue comes down to whether you can validate the syntax
with one schema or not and whether it actually makes things easier for
the pipeline author.

--Alex Milowski