Re: Parameters redux

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> I'd like to find a way to simplify it just a little more. Creating a new
|> kind of port, a parameter port, seems like an unfortunate bit of
|> complexity.
|>
|> As far as I can tell, it's only necessary so that you know where to send
|> literal p:parameter elements that appear as children of the step. I
|> think I'd propose that instead of having a special kind of port, we
|> simply say that they go to a port named 'parameters'. It would be a
|> static error to put them on a step that didn't have an input port named
|> 'parameters'.
|
| The other reason was to have automatic linking between a parameter
| port on the pipeline and parameter ports on steps, but you could do
| that with magic names as well.
|
| I don't really like using magic names for things. I think that names
| should be something that the pipeline author chooses and that make
| sense in the context of the particular processes in the pipeline. So,
| for example, if you had a parameter port on p:http-request to set the
| HTTP headers, you could call it 'headers' rather than 'parameters'.

Ok, I decided to try it with the new kind of input port.

The default case is still a port named 'parameters' so we do have magic
names in the default case.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wit consists in seeing the resemblance
http://nwalsh.com/            | between things which differ, and the
                              | difference between things which are
                              | alike.--Madame De Stæl