- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:50:43 +0100 (BST)
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> | <step type=3D"validate" name=3D"val"> > | <input name=3D"source" from=3D"in"/> > | <input name=3D"schema" from=3D"whatever1"/> > | </step> > | <step type=3D"xslt" name=3D"ss"> > | <input name=3D"source" from=3D"val.result"/> > | <input name=3D"stylesheet" ref=3D"whatever2"/> > | </step> > > I think you still want to make the outputs explicit: > > <step type=3D"validate" name=3D"val"> > <input name=3D"source" from=3D"in"/> > <input name=3D"schema" from=3D"whatever1"/> > <output name=3D"result"/> > </step> > <step type=3D"xslt" name=3D"ss"> > <input name=3D"source" from=3D"val.result"/> > <input name=3D"stylesheet" ref=3D"whatever2"/> > <output name=3D"result"/> > </step> > > otherwise you can't (easily) have a component that produces two output > streams. I'm assuming that there's a component description somewhere with the signature of the component in it. The XSLT component has "source" and "stylesheet" inputs and a "result" output, so all instances of the XSLT component have them. There is no need for any ports to be mentioned in the pipeline except to connect them up. In the syntax above I chose to have the inputs name the outputs they were connected to; I could have done it the other way round. In fact, the connections could be specified quite separately: <step type="validate" name="val"/> <step type="xslt" name="ss"/> <pipe from="val.result" to="ss.source"/> which has a nice explicitness, but I doubt it would be popular. > I think I like it. Though I think I'd be inclined to do the syntax > just a little differently: The "step.port" syntax was not intended to be a real proposal, just something to convey the idea. -- Richard
Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 13:50:50 UTC