Re: Parameters and pipelines proposal

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| All looks fine to me, except:
|
|>  9) Allow p:parameter elements on p:pipeline.
|>
|> 10) The declaration of a parameter input port must be empty. It is a
|>     static error to attempt to define a default input.
|
| If you're not allowed to set default values for parameters in the
| declaraiton of a parameter input port, why are you allowed to set them
| with <p:parameter> elements (assuming that that's what they're for)?

My thinking was that the only point in having a default would be to
set some default params. And I didn't think we needed two ways
to do that.

This is ok:

  <p:pipeline ...>
    <p:parameter name="foo" value="bar"/>
    <p:parameter name="bar" value="foo"/>
    ...

And so is this:

  <p:pipeline ...>
    <p:input port="parameters" primary="yes"/>
    <p:parameter name="foo" value="bar"/>
    <p:parameter name="bar" value="foo"/>
    ...

But I didn't think we needed to allow this:

  <p:pipeline ...>
    <p:input port="parameters" primary="yes">
      <p:inline>
        <c:parameter-list>
          <c:parameter name="foo" value="bar"/>
          <c:parameter name="bar" value="foo"/>
        </c:parameter-list>
      </p:inline>
    </p:input>

But if you really feel strongly about it, I could be persuaded. It
might be more consistent to treat it just like a default "ordinary"
input, I guess.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wherever they burn books they will
http://nwalsh.com/            | also, in the end, burn human beings.--
                              | Heine