Re: ease of use proposal - adding 'from' attribute to step to define connection

Its an interesting thought  (FWIW- originally I also was toying with
things like mystep#result so its nice to here confirmation from a 2nd
pair of eyes).

I also like result@mystep ... and from my pov still fits in with the
scope of change being discussed.

J


On 26 November 2014 at 19:59, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
> On 26 November 2014 at 18:01, Jim Fuller wrote:
>
>   Hi,
>
>>   <p:identity name="mystep"/>
>>   <p:wrap-sequence .../>
>>   <p:count from="mystep"/>
>
>> [...]
>> Which is semantically equivalent to the following pipeline.
>
>>   <p:identity name="mystep"/>
>>   <p:wrap-sequence .../>
>>   <p:count>
>>     <p:input port="source">
>>       <p:pipe step="mystep" port="result"/>
>>     </p:input>
>
>   I like the idea.  But it is limited to primary ports.  What about
> something like the following, allowing to give the port as well
> (indeed still using the primary port if not explicit):
>
>     <p:count from="result@mystep"/>
>
>   Because both names are NCNames, we could use "mystep:result" as
> well, but it would then look too much like a QName, and people would
> wonder why "mystep" prefix is not declared.  I liked "mystep.result"
> but "." is a legitimate character in an NCName. I like "mystep→result"
> as well, but I do not think the IT world is  ready yet for that in
> 2015.
>
>   I think that from="result@mystep" reads quite easy in plain English.
>
>   Regards,
>
> --
> Florent Georges
> http://fgeorges.org/
> http://h2oconsulting.be/

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 19:13:55 UTC