Re: Naming

Overall, I like this naming proposal.

Jeni Tennison wrote:
> It can also provide a place for shorthands for some of the really common 
> components. For example (we've talked about the first two; the other two 
> are completely speculative):
> 
> - @load="URI": loads the document at the URI supplied
> - @select="xpath": filters the documents using the XPath
> - @save="URI": saves the selected documents with the base URI supplied

If this is for debugging purposes, I'd say that implementors have
an easy handle (e.g. step-name!port ) with which a user can specify
that they'd like that input/output saved for debugging inspection.

So, maybe we don't need this right now.

> - @wrap="QName": wraps the documents into a single document

This could be very useful.  The implementation cost seems low to
me.

> We define the inputs and outputs of pipelines, groups and so on using a 
> combination of these elements, by nesting the binding element <pipe> 
> within the port definition <input> and <output>. You don't have to use a 
> 'to' attribute: the pipe goes to the port that the <pipe> appears in.

I really like this idea.   This also gives us a way to use
"here" documents to specify static outputs.

The use case for static outputs is where you have many different
pipelines that need to have the same input/output signature but
specific pipelines don't need to produce all outputs.  If you
have "here" documents for outputs, you can place some kind of
"NOP" XML into that output:

<pipeline name="ex1">
    ...
    <output name="result">
       <mydoc>...</mydoc>
    </output>
</pipeline>

--Alex Milowski

Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 17:49:57 UTC