Hi,
I am asking if it should be possible to optionally stream the
inputs/outputs when the workflow is processed without writing the
intermediate files on disk.
Well, a workflow is basically:
- some process units (or task or rule) that take inputs (file) and
produce outputs (other file)
- a grap
Hello Simon,
zimoun writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am asking if it should be possible to optionally stream the
> inputs/outputs when the workflow is processed without writing the
> intermediate files on disk.
>
> Well, a workflow is basically:
> - some process units (or task or rule) that take inputs (fil
Hi Roel,
Thank you for all your comments.
> Maybe we can come up with a convenient way to combine two processes
> using a shell pipe. But this needs more thought!
Yes, from my point of view, the classic shell pipe `|` has two strong
limitations for workflows:
1. it does not compose at the 'pr
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:55:25PM +0200, zimoun wrote:
> Hi Roel,
>
> Thank you for all your comments.
>
> > Maybe we can come up with a convenient way to combine two processes
> > using a shell pipe. But this needs more thought!
>
> Yes, from my point of view, the classic shell pipe `|` has t
zimoun writes:
> Hi Roel,
>
> Thank you for all your comments.
>
>
>> Maybe we can come up with a convenient way to combine two processes
>> using a shell pipe. But this needs more thought!
>
> Yes, from my point of view, the classic shell pipe `|` has two strong
> limitations for workflows:
>
Hi Pjotr and Roel,
Thank you for the explanations.
I am not sure to have the skills to understand all of them.
> Yes, but the original question was whether you could stream data
> without writing to disk, right? Unix pipes are the system way of
> providing that functionality - with the added adv
