Re: Another take on versioning

Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:
> So here's  
> my dumb question: the only outputs that you need to care about are the  
> ones that are connected, so couldn't a processor work out what outputs  
> a step is supposed to have based on the connections to those outputs?  

Could it?

Is this pipeline correct:

  <p:pipeline>
    <p:fribble/>
  </p:pipeline>

Is this one?

  <p:declare-step>
    <p:fribble/>
  </p:declare-step>

Is this one?

  <p:pipeline>

    <p:fribble name="foo">

    <p:fribble>
      <p:input port="beware">
        <p:pipe step="foo" port="bouncy-fun-ball"/>
      </p:input>
    </p:fribble>

  </p:pipeline>

I think you could almost tell a story about versioning that didn't
require declarations because unless the new step (the one you don't
have a declaration for) is in a p:choose or a p:try/p:group, the
whole pipeline's bound to fail so you can exit early.

But I'm not absolutely certain that it's impossible to construct an
ambigous pipeline using p:choose when you don't know the declarations.

Still, given a couple of months to work it out, maybe we could get
there...

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The future belongs to those who believe
http://nwalsh.com/            | in the beauty of their dreams.--Eleanor
                              | Roosevelt