Re: manifest based processing

Using "" and “in-memory.out" as port names are just conventions we (Jostein and I are working on the same project) use to keep our port names consistent and readable, but other than that I agree with Florent that port names should not be involved in implicit connections. That would be too brittle and too limited IMO.


On 19 févr. 2014, at 17:50, Olivier JEULIN <> wrote:

> Sorry,  I wanted to reply Jostein
> About the naming, instead of connecting to in-memory.out,
> you could name in/out ports "in-memory", and they would connect.
> 2014-02-19 17:33 GMT+01:00 Olivier JEULIN <>:
>> If I understood correctly,  you want to automatically connect an
>> output named "A" to an input named "A"?
>> Given that the spec v2 proposes in §2.7
>> “Change all steps with a single non-primary output to have a single
>> primary output”
>> could we remove the notion of primary port, and say that, by default,
>> input ports connect to the first previous (preceding-sibling::*[1])
>> port of the same name?
>> We can still define explicitly the binding when we need to connect to
>> another port or step.
> -- 
> Envoyé depuis Firefox et analysé grâce à Hadoop par la NSA (via Gmail©®™) 😏

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:58:42 UTC