[kepler-dev] Can "stop" interrupt "initialize()"

Laura L. Downey ldowney at lternet.edu
Wed Feb 1 08:28:57 PST 2006

Just a note -- type checking is a menu item in the tools menu design for the
future.  And we have some different options to decide on about whether type
checking should be automatic or user initiated etc.  I believe the last
discussion on this we decided that workflows could run with semantic
mismatches but would not run if there were structural mismatches.

Laura L. Downey
Senior Usability Engineer
LTER Network Office
Department of Biology, MSC03 2020
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM  87131-0001
505.277.3157 office
505.610.9657 mobile
505.277-2541 fax
ldowney at lternet.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: kepler-dev-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
[mailto:kepler-dev-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Bowers
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:39 AM
To: Kevin Ruland
Cc: ptolemy-hackers at bennett.EECS.Berkeley.EDU; kepler-dev
Subject: Re: [kepler-dev] Can "stop" interrupt "initialize()"

No problem ... I thought you were referring to structural types -- int,
string, array of double, etc.  I agree with Bertram that structural type
checking would be very useful to have has a button akin to a staging
button, a run button, a stop button, and so on.  The semantic type stuff
is not essential to running a workflow --


On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Kevin Ruland wrote:

> 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
> > 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.
> >
> >
Kepler-dev mailing list
Kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org

More information about the Kepler-dev mailing list