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

Brad Chapman chapmanb at arches.uga.edu
Mon Jun 12 00:37:35 EDT 2000

Jeff wrote:
>> > 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.

I wrote:
>> We were talking about node IDs. And, yup, I think names are better, 
>> 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 

Jean-Marc wrote:
> 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 
> Overflow,
> nodes have a name, which is usually node1, node2, ...). However, it 
> important
> that we can connect nodes using an input (or output) name, and not 
an id.

Ooops, sorry. That first sentence of mine should say: 'We were talkign 
about I/O IDs.' We were talking about the same thing, Jean-Marc, I 
just wrote the wrong thing in my reply to Jeff. *smack self on 
forehead*. I apologize for being confusing. In our discussion we were 
talking about naming I/Os, and didn't talk about naming Nodes at all 
(at least, I wasn't talking about it :-). I'm completely on the same 
page with you in terms of using input/output names and not ids. Okay, 
stop writing now Brad, before you screw up again...


More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list