And are you suggesting biologists build workflows? :) Paul.
Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 19:45, Mark Wilkinson<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd vote for this... it's going to be pretty natural for biologists to >> want to say things like 3' and 5' as names of ports, so it will just be >> a poke in the eye if they can't. >> > > There's not really any technical reason to do any restrictions on > processor and port names except for that bug in the provenance code > where the name is not escaped properly in the SQL. The XML serialiser > should escape the names properly for the definition of the workflow, > and running of the workflow simply uses string equivalence to find the > port name. > > Obviously some activities, like Beanshell, can't deal with any random > port name, as they would be represented as Java variable names inside > the beanshell scripts. > > > There are reasons why it might be difficult to visualise some of these > portnames, as we are going through GraphViz and SVG, and we have to > make sure that all of these steps do the proper escaping for dot and > SVG. > > If we allow any characters that would however put restrictions on > future workflow serialisation formats (like this 'script-like' or > 'RDF-like' formats we have briefly talked about) - but then again they > should probably be designed to handle this as well. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ taverna-hackers mailing list [email protected] Web site: http://www.taverna.org.uk Mailing lists: http://www.taverna.org.uk/taverna-mailing-lists/ Developers Guide: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/tools/developer-information
