RE: Implicit parameter input on p:pipeline

Just one more question: Is the following alowed?

<p:pipeline type="mypipeline">
  <p:input port="parameters" kind="parameter"/>
  <p:output port="parameters-out">
    <p:pipe step="mypipeline" port="parameters"/>
  </p:output>
</p:pipeline>

Or:

<p:pipeline type="mypipeline">
  <p:input port="parameters" kind="parameter"/>
  <p:identity>
    <p:input port="source">
      <p:pipe step="mypipeline" port="parameters"/>
    </p:pipe>
  </p:output>
</p:pipeline>

In other words, can a non-parameter input/output port contain a pipe
binding to a parameter input port? I guess this is not allowed, because
otherwise there would be no need for the p:parameters step. But does the
specification mention this somehere?

Regards,
Vojtech

--
Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:24 PM
> To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Implicit parameter input on p:pipeline
> 
> 
> It also seems to me that the text in section 2.5 does not 
> handle the case when a pipeline declares an explicit *output* 
> port named "parameters". I think this should be allowed (the 
> specification does not seem to forbid it), but then the text:
> 
> "If the pipeline declares an ordinary input named 
> 'parameters', the implicit primary parameter input port will 
> be named 'parameters1'. If that's not available, then 
> 'parameters2', etc. until an available name is found."
> 
> Should be changed to:
> 
> "If the pipeline declares an ordinary input OR OUTPUT named 
> 'parameters', the implicit primary parameter input port will 
> be named 'parameters1'. If that's not available, then 
> 'parameters2', etc. until an available name is found."
> 
> Regards,
> Vojtech
> 
> --
> Vojtech Toman
> Principal Software Engineer
> EMC Corporation
> 
> Aert van Nesstraat 45
> 3012 CA Rotterdam
> The Netherlands
> 
> Toman_Vojtech@emc.com 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:42 PM
> > To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Implicit parameter input on p:pipeline
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Since the p:pipeline now always contains an implict "source" 
> > input port and an implicit "result" output port, I wonder 
> if the same 
> > cannot be done with the parameter inputs.
> > 
> > Section 2.5 says:
> > 
> > "Additionally, if a p:pipeline does not declare any parameter input 
> > ports, but contains a step which has a primary parameter 
> input port, 
> > then an implicit primary parameter input port (named 'parameters') 
> > will be added to the pipeline. (If the pipeline declares an 
> ordinary 
> > input named 'parameters', the implicit primary parameter input port 
> > will be named 'parameters1'. If that's not available, then 
> > 'parameters2', etc.
> > until an available name is found.)"
> > 
> > Cannot this be changed to something like:
> > 
> > "All p:pipeline pipelines have an implicit primary parameter input 
> > port named 'parameters'. Any parameter input ports that the 
> p:pipeline 
> > declares explicitly are in addition to this port and may not be 
> > declared primary."
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Vojtech
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Vojtech Toman
> > Principal Software Engineer
> > EMC Corporation
> > 
> > Aert van Nesstraat 45
> > 3012 CA Rotterdam
> > The Netherlands
> > 
> > Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 13:24:10 UTC