• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:31:05 +0000
• In-reply-to: <42021486.30006@p...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <42021486.30006@p...>
• Sender: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

Bill de hÓra wrote,
> Maintaining systems using scads of XML deployment descriptors and
> config files is a pita, especially in a cluster.

Seeing as I'm spending most of my time with fair-sized clusters these 
days, this piqued my interest.

Are you saying that there's something special about XML (as opposed to 
any other kind of) descriptors which makes life difficult on clusters? 
Or that there's something special about clusters (as opposed to single 
hosts) which make XML descriptors especially awkward? Or both? Or 
something else entirely?

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Even if you're not ... was If you're going to the W3Cmeeting in March
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread