Re: 2nd thoughts on implicit decl

James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> writes:
> On testing with xprocxq, I now think there is no need to add this as a
> requirement for v2.0 as its achievable with an extension attribute and
> some pipeline rewriting (or I can even imagine an extension-step 'step
> loader').

That sounds like a hack. If there's a requirement for running steps
without explicitly importing the declaration for that step, let's
consider that.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com