Re: Parameters redux

/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| 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.

I didn't add the concept of a default parameter port, but we do need the
concept of an implicit binding for parameter ports, I think. Otherwise,
the pipeline author has to explicitly allow parameters to be passed from
the pipeline to contained steps.

I could live with requiring the pipeline author to do that, but I think
it's going to add a lot of boilerplate to otherwise simple pipelines and
I think we'll have better luck getting consensus on the draft if we
don't do that :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | You cannot step twice into the same
http://nwalsh.com/            | river, for other waters are continually
                              | flowing in.-- Heraclitus