Re: <input> for <pipeline>

On 10/5/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | Personnaly, I'm strongly opposed to allow to NOT bing a primary input ports
>
> I'm sorry, could you rephrase that, I can't quite figure out what you
> mean.

Sorry, I was saying that I don't want that a primary input port could
stay unbounded because it has a default content

>
> | Apart from that, I find it a useful a not so problematic feature
> |
> | But It would mean that
> |
> | * <!-- nothing --> (defaulted content)
> | * <p:input port="secondary"/> (default binding)
> | * <p:input port="secondary"><p:empty/></p:input> (empty content)
> |
> | could give three different result from now on (Norm it was one of your
> | earlier concern).
>
> Yes. I'd be happy to say that it *only* applies to the "initial
> pipeline".
>
> | Furthermore, it gives us one more use case for cardinality zero-or-one
>
> How so?

Writing email too fast, is not a good idea

I was trying to say the exact opposite : may be for use case we found,
that need zero-or-one, we could try to use the default content instead
to propose a solution ?


Mohamed

-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €