- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:23:53 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 5/19/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Here's a possibility: > [...] I like your proposal. > 3. We remove the concept of in-scope parameters. Instead, there is the > concept of the "default readable parameter port", which is similar to > the "default readable port". If there is only one parameter port > specified (implicitly or explicitly) on a step container, that becomes > the default readable parameter port for its contained steps. Can we simplify this by not having the concept of default parameter port? We introduced the concept of default port because when 2 steps follow each other, there is a good chance that the output of the first goes the to the input of the second. But is it true that if a pipeline takes parameters then most of the steps are going to use those parameters? I don't think this is the case. So I prefer that "connection" to be made explicitly when needed. And with explicit parameter connections, we don't need to the concept of default parameter port. Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:24:01 UTC