Re: Implicit output ports and p:declare-step

"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
> I have a question about manufacturing implicit output ports in compound
> steps.

Great minds...see my post to the WG from earlier today.

> Section 2.3 of the spec says:
>
> "Additionally, if a compound step has no declared outputs and the last
> step in its subpipeline has an unbound primary output, then an implicit
> primary output port will be added to the compound step (and consequently
> the last step's primary output will be bound to it). This implicit
> output port has no name. It inherits the sequence property of the port
> bound to it."
>
> Does this apply also to p:declare-step? I just found out (to my
> surprise) that in our implementation, it does. The effect is that if you
> run the following pipeline:
>
> <p:declare-step>
>   <p:load href="doc.xml"/>
> </p:declare-step>
>
> then our processor will manufacture an implicit primary output port for
> the pipeline, and you will get the contents of doc.xml as the pipeline
> result.
>
> Is this correct, or a bug in our implementation?

Both, I think.

The concern I have is that p:declare-step is potentially an interface
to the outside world. I'm not sure what it means to have a dynamically
created anonymous output at that level.


                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To enjoy yourself and make others enjoy
http://nwalsh.com/            | themselves, without harming yourself or
                              | any other; that, to my mind, is the
                              | whole of ethics.-- Chamfort