[Pipet Devel] IRC log on XML design/Overflow inclusion in Piper

Jean-Marc Valin jean-marc.valin at hermes.usherb.ca
Mon Jun 12 00:11:53 EDT 2000

> > Are you guys talking about node ID's or I/O ID's?  For I/O's, I
> agree that a
> > name may be better than some randomly assigned number.  And you
> certainly
> > don't need a URI for each I/O, since it's the node (that the I/O's
> are
> > attached to) that has the URI.
> We were talking about node IDs. And, yup, I think names are better, as
> Jean-Marc suggested. I'll switch stuff over to using this and phase
> out ids. And nope, we don't need anything fancy like URIs for inputs.

Perhaps we were discussing two different things at once. I was talking about
inputs ids for nodes. I don't care about nodes having a name of ID (in Overflow,
nodes have a name, which is usually node1, node2, ...). However, it is important
that we can connect nodes using an input (or output) name, and not an id.

Jeff Wrote:
> Besides the pipe (connector) windowlet, there is a dot at the end of each pipe
> that can hold a SHORT name or number.

> The problem with having names tag along with the ENDS of the pipes, is that
> the ends are connected together, thus names will overlap and be obscured.

> I could also position names along the center of the pipes.  I'll think about
> it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. ...but what I mean by
input/output name can be seen at
for the FDSaveFrame screenshot. For example, if we have a Divide node, it's
important to show which input is the numerator and which one is the denominator.


Jean-Marc Valin
Universite de Sherbrooke - Genie Electrique
valj01 at gel.usherb.ca

More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list