Re: No more parameter ports

Does this mean that the @kind attribute on ports would be removed?

If there are no parameter ports, I guess you could still pass a
<c:param-set/>-document to p:xslt (and any other step requiring
parameters)? c:param-set would be the "first-class object" of sorts, and
could be passed to a secondary port on p:xslt (which would default to an
empty parameter set document). p:with-param would require you to always
provide the port attribute, and it would be a dynamic error if the document
on the referenced port is not a c:param-set. WDYT?


Jostein


On 9 October 2013 09:14, Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote:

> > Ok, then there are to things that are a drag about that:
> > 1. That you have to declare the params at all.
> > 2. That you have to provide a value to pass in.
> >
> > #2 seems to be the worse of the two. What if you have in your xslt:
> >
> > <xsl:param name="blah">
> >  <xsl:choose>
> >   <!-- some logic here that only happens if nothing is passed in -->
> > </xsl:choose> </xsl:param>
> >
> > Now you have to move that logic into the xpl as well? Or refactor the
> > xslt so that you take in a dummy param and then test the dummy param
> > and do the logic if it's not the default value?
>
> A good point. This could perhaps be solved/improved if we work on our
> "unspecified optional option" story. For example, we might say that the
> following works if $optional-option is not specified (param would remain
> unspecified):
>
> <p:with-param name="param" select="$optional-option"/>
>
> Regards,
> Vojtech
>
> --
> Vojtech Toman
> Consultant Software Engineer
> EMC | Information Intelligence Group
> vojtech.toman@emc.com
> http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
>
>