Re: The Scope of Step Names

Erik Bruchez wrote:
> Alex Milowski wrote:
>  > 1. Step must be able to refer to other steps that are
>  >    siblings (preceding and following) otherwise you
>  >    can't connected steps at all.
> "Preceding siblings" would be enough IMO.

I don't think we want to limit to preceding siblings.  If a user
wants to structure their pipeline "logically" from their perspective,
such a limitation would get in the way.  I can't see how it is
any issue for an implementer.

Similarly, if a user can't easily determine "before" or just wants
to quickly insert a step into their pipeline, they shouldn't have
to figure out what "preceding sibling" means just to do that.

--Alex Milowski

Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 16:46:51 UTC