Re: Names for p:* steps

"Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> writes:

> Sorry for the comparison, but you remind me someone 10 years ago,
> asking me why we can't execute any Java class that was in the JDK
>
> I still think that declare step is declaring abstract model of the step

Uhm.

We agree that I can call foo, right:

  <p:declare-step type="px:my-step" name="foo">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>
    <p:identity/>
  </p:declare-step>

And I can call bar:

  <p:declare-step type="px:my-atomic-step" name="bar">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>
  </p:declare-step>

And I could call baz:

  <p:declare-step type="px:add-attribute" name="baz">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>
    <p:option name="match" required="true"/>
    <p:option name="attribute-name" required="true"/>
    <p:option name="attribute-value" required="true"/>
 </p:declare-step>

But I can't call p:add-attribute? The *only* difference is that
p:add-attribute doesn't have a name.

Anyway, we don't need to do anything so I'm not worried about it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If brute force doesn't work, maybe
http://nwalsh.com/            | you're not using enough brute force.