W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Implicit output ports and p:declare-step

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:34:16 -0400
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870FFA641F@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> > then our processor will manufacture an implicit primary 
> output port for
> > the pipeline, and you will get the contents of doc.xml as 
> the pipeline
> > result.
> >
> > Is this correct, or a bug in our implementation?
> Both, I think.
> The concern I have is that p:declare-step is potentially an interface
> to the outside world. I'm not sure what it means to have a dynamically
> created anonymous output at that level.

I feel the same. I lean towards saying that this does not apply to
p:declare-step, exactly because it is "an interface to the outside
world". And you don't really want to have pipelines having unnamed
implicit output ports, IMHO. ...althought at times, especially when you
want to be lazy and save some typing, thay may be convenient. 

Personally, I think that p:declare-step should behave the same for both
atomic and compound steps. Saying that in the case of compound steps you
may get some magical output ports smells to me. I prefer steps with an
obvious signature.

Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 14:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:05 UTC