- From: Olivier Jeulin <olivier.jeulin@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:47:05 +0100
- To: xproc-dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Le 19/02/2014 17:44, Florent Georges a écrit : > On 19 February 2014 17:33, Olivier JEULIN wrote: > >> If I understood correctly, you want to automatically connect an >> output named "A" to an input named "A"? > Nop, not based on the name, that looks too fragile to me (plus, you > want to connect an output port "result" to an input port "source"). > That is the raison d'etre for the kinds. They create classes of > "stuff flowing through ports", and we define that two ports will by > default connect all their ports of the same kind (the user still has > the choice to define the connections manually). My point exactly: "stuff flowing through ports" = you attach a name to a pipeline (like "hot"/"cold" in the bathroom, or "phase"/"ground" for electrical cables). So there is no point to have another naming for source/result. result(kind-X) |=>=| source(kind-X) is equivalent to: kind-X |=>=| kind-X Lets cut the middle man Of course, we still need to be able to make an explicit connection when needed. This is similar to pipes in unix: programs have stdin/stout and they are connected by default. -- Olivier Jeulin
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 20:47:36 UTC