Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Although Ant is push-based whereas the pipeline proposal seems to be pull-based. Ant starts with inputs and checks to see if any need to be processed to update corresponding outputs (although you could write an Ant task to do things in a pull-based fashion, if desired). The pipeline proposal starts with a requested target, and checks to see if any inputs need to be processed to provide an up-to-date view of the requested target. It seems to me these two different approaches can have different areas of applicability. The push approach of Ant seems well suited to generalized build systems. The pull-based approach seems suited to the sort of serve-on-demand approach that web apps take (although I wouldn't restrict this to web apps). > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:27 PM > To: 'Nicolas LEHUEN'; 'Thomas B. Passin'; 'xml-dev@l...' > Subject: RE: XML Pipeline (was: Stupid Question ...) > > > > -----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."
|
