Re: default pipeline input

On 3/14/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> / Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
> | On 3/12/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> |> We don't currently allow 'default' on p:input so I think I'd prefer to
> |> say that if a pipeline has a single input, that becomes the default
> |> readable port for the pipeline, otherwise the author has to specify
> |> the first connection.
> |
> | This rule makes sense to me. This is also consistent with what we are
> | doing with step outputs, namely "If a step has exactly one output
> | port, or if one of its output ports is explicitly designated as the
> | default" (section 2.2), but we don't consider that if there are
> | multiple outputs declared, the first one will be the default.
>
> That's not the case. If there are multiple outputs, there is only a
> default if exactly one of them specifies default="yes". There's no
> "first one" rule for p:outputs.

What is not the case? What I am saying doesn't seems to contradict the
fact that right now "if there are multiple outputs, there is only a
default if exactly one of them specifies default="yes", and that
"there's no "first one" rule for p:outputs".

> There's no "first one" rule for p:inputs either :-), but following
> Henry's lead, I'm suggesting that we make such a rule, but only on
> p:pipeline.

If my original message wasn't clear: my preference is for the status
quo, and *not* for introducing a rule that would make the first
pipeline input the default or the first step output the default (if no
other output is declared as the default).

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:33:44 UTC