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, 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. 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 (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. 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... Brad