Shawn,
I was not clear -- I was referring to the semantic type checking and the
'manual override' would only be for those users who have some deeper
understanding of the data and don't want to go through the effort of
annotating them correctly. In retrospect, I should not have spoken
because I don't know what the desired functionality of this portion of
the system is.
Kevin
Shawn Bowers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Kevin Ruland wrote:
Bertram,
Things like static type checking may be optional (to the workflow) in
the sense that one could still execute a workflow without having done
the static type checking step or perhaps the workflow could be executed
if static type checking fails (user override?).
Is this really true? I don't think so in Ptolemy -- i.e., ptolemy throws
exceptions if unexpected types are found. In general, I'm not sure that
for standard ptolemy/kepler type workflows, it even makes sense to run
them if they are not type safe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to the ptolemy-hackers mailing list. Please send administrative
mail for this list to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
