• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:35:04 -0800
• In-reply-to: <41B2E9BD.8030507@z...>
• References: <009801c4d941$ad985600$6501a8c0@dell8100> <20041203201954.25440.qmail@w...> <e3a5cb2c0412031223645b7858@m...> <41B14D45.8000902@r...> <1102141005.41b1564d2e661@65.39.203.11> <41B29521.9050505@r...> <1102240581.41b2db4577a3b@65.39.203.11> <41B2E9BD.8030507@z...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Rick Marshall wrote:

> i think the original request is for something closer to a workflow where 
> each process completes its modifications before handing the message as a 
> whole to the next process(es) in the queue.

Agreed. Which is why I mentioned products that definitely don't fit the 
narrower, more technically correct, definition of pipe/pipeline.

-- Ron

• References:
  • XML Pipeline
    • From: "Stephen E. Beller" <sbeller@n...>
  • Re: XML Pipeline
    • From: Christopher Milton <cmiltonperl@y...>
  • Re: XML Pipeline
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Re: XML Pipeline
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: XML Pipeline
    • From: david.lyon@c...
  • Re: XML Pipeline
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
    • From: david.lyon@c...
  • Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
• Next by Date: Re: XML Pipeline
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
• Next by thread: Re: XML Pipeline vs an XML Grid
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread