• To: 'Nicolas LEHUEN' <nicolas.lehuen@u...>, "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XML Pipeline (was: Stupid Question ...)
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:27:02 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:13 PM
> To: 'Nicolas LEHUEN'; 'Thomas B. Passin'; 'xml-dev@l...'
> Subject: RE:  Stupid Question (was RE:  XML doesn't
> dese rve its "X".)
> 
> I was wondering out loud today about the feasibility of using 
> Ant[1] to
> describe workflows. Why not? Building an application from 
> components is
> conceptually no different from building anything else from 
> components. It
> may not turn out to be the best approach, but it's certainly worth
> exploring.

Contrary to what many may think, I find it encouraging that I'm only a week
behind the curve:

"The syntax of the pipeline language owes a good deal to tools like make and
Ant."

http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1564

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Next by Date: RE: XML faster than mySQL database ?
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Next by thread: RE: XML Pipeline (was: Stupid Question ...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread