p:with-input and compound steps

Hello all,

We’ve decided to try p:with-input to distinguish input declaration
from input connections:

  <p:declare-step type="ex:foo">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    …
  </p:declare-step>

  <ex:foo>
    <p:with-input port="source">…

We also, separately, decided to abandon p:iteration-source and
p:viewport-source.

So…is the input to p:for-each defining an input with either a name (an
arbitrary name?) or no name, or is it connecting something to an input
with either a name (an arbitrary name?) or no name?

1. <p:for-each>
     <p:input>…</p:input>

2. <p:for-each>
     <p:input name="source">…</p:input>

3. <p:for-each>
     <p:input name="anythingIwant">…</p:input>

4. <p:for-each>
     <p:with-input>…</p:with-input>

5. <p:for-each>
     <p:with-input name="source">…</p:with-input>

6. <p:for-each>
     <p:with-input name="anythingIwant">…</p:with-input>

I think it’s probably easier to explain as p:with-input, so I think I
favor 4, 5, and 6 over 1, 2, and 3. I don’t think option 6 makes any
sense.

Option 4 is appealing because there can be only one input and its name
is irrelevant. But it introduces a new class of with-input tag: an
anonymous one. Is the small savings in typing worth the cognative load
of a new kind of thing?

Option 5 is therefore the simplest and most consistent thing, I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com