2nd thoughts on implicit decl

After some reflection, I have flipped flopped on my assertion that we
may need to consider implicit decl for v2.0 and will not include them
(unless others feel strongly the other way) in v2.0 doc.

The primary scenario I am interested in is allowing developers to
download step decl and then immediately use them in their pipelines
w/o the need for tedious import of decl.

On testing with xprocxq, I now think there is no need to add this as a
requirement for v2.0 as its achievable with an extension attribute and
some pipeline rewriting (or I can even imagine an extension-step 'step
loader').

Jim Fuller

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:19:06 UTC