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.

Another good example of why you don't want this restriction
to just be "preceding siblings" is for the case of program-generated
pipelines.  In that case, there may very-well be a huge overhead
for determining "before" in the flow of components.

It just isn't necessary that the pipeline compiler enforce such a
rule because it doesn't need it.

I can only see this as being useful if it prevents the user from
doing "bad things".  While a user could write a pathological pipeline
in complete reverse order, I doubt that would happen.  The more likely
situation is where they insert an addition step out of order because
they are testing or quickly "fixing" the pipeline.

--Alex Milowski

Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 17:07:43 UTC