Re: Naming

Alex Milowski wrote:
>> 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>

I'd actually intended 'here' documents to be nested inside the <pipe>. 
In a <step>, they have to be, in order to indicate which port the 'here' 
document is associated with:

<step kind="xslt" name="transform">
   <pipe to="source" from="validated!result" />
   <pipe to="stylesheet">
     <xsl:stylesheet ...>...</xsl:stylesheet>
   </pipe>
</step>

and I think it would be best to avoid having <pipe> work differently 
within <step>s from how it does within <input>/<output>. So I'd suggest 
we do 'here' documents for outputs with:

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

(I'm all in favour of 'here' documents for outputs: I think it's 
essential for <choose>.)

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:54:44 UTC