[Pipet Devel] XML descriptions for loci

Brad Chapman chapmanb at arches.uga.edu
Tue May 30 20:31:43 EDT 2000

I wrote:
>> <!--Constant.xml
>> Locus type describing a constant value.
>> -->

Jean-Marc wrote:
> I would remove this comment and put it in the definition so it can 
be used
> Piper

Ooops, yeah, I meant to do that. Sorry!

Jean-Marc wrote:
> I suggest something like:
> <piperplugin>
>    <locus name = "Constant" module="General">
>          <parameter name = "constant_value" type = "ANY" />
>          <output name = "output_constant" type = "ANY" />
>          <comments> Locus type describing a constant value. 
>        </locus>
> </piperplugin>
> If each node definition is in its own XML file, the module name can 
just be a
> property. 

This all looks great, although I'm not sure about the module thing 
just because you could have multiple levels of module organization 
within a top level category. For instance, sticking with UNIX 
examples, you could have:

unix/utilities -> for stuff like ls, grep
unix/processes -> for process associated stuff like kill, nice

just as an example. We could also do this with module = 
"unix/utilities" or module = "unix.utilities" What do you think?

> Also, this is just a detail, but I suggest not to use a .xml
> extension
> since most of the piper files will be XML files.

I agree, I just didn't have enough brainpower to think up a good 
extension. Any ideas? random.pip? random.ppr? random.brad?

[...snip...xml for ls...]

> I may be missing something, but that seems to be too compilicated 
and I don't
> see the gain.

I guess the major gain is just that we can deconstruct the "built" 
node back into its individual components, so it could be modified and 
then "re-built." There may be better ways to accomplish this goal (or 
maybe this isn't even a good goal?). What were your thoughts on how 
'ls -l' would look considering how the individual loci look?


More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list