Re: ease of use proposal - adding 'from' attribute to step to define connection

Hello Florent,

To summarise;

* @from attribute taking a step name (which denotes input from primary
output port)  seems to have broad support. This @from attribute can
live on the step as well as probably a p:input.

* enumerating multiple step names (as Gerrit proposed) seems non controversial

* some kind of way to address ports other then default primary output
seems like a useful optimisation, but (as Paul mentions) it is a kind
of departure, lets just wait and see where WG discussions bring us.

So while first and second points seem likely to get through WG, I am
less confident about getting agreement on a scheme (micro syntax) for
addressing ports/step ... as I said I like your suggestion and will
present to WG for consideration (along with alternates). Thanks for
being patient.


On 1 December 2014 at 10:56, Florent Georges <> wrote:
> On 1 December 2014 at 08:47, James Fuller wrote:
>   Hi,
>> yes, I agree with your observations about the 'micro' syntax and its
>> likely that getting that aspect (in result@mystep form) through the WG
>> will be difficult and less likely.
>   I probably missed something, but I did not get this one.  What
> exactly do you refer to by "micro syntax"?  Why is from="port@step"
> adoption unlikely?
>   I thought the WG was looking at syntax simplification, and this one
> looks like a very good one, and a rather easy one to define, as it is
> mainly syntactic sugar, isn't it?
>   Regards,
> --
> Florent Georges

Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 10:11:13 UTC