• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: funny parser
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:54:34 +0200
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0720751D@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0720751D@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Essentially the same "mess" as code patches.  Same
> administrative overhead, same risks, same problems for
> multiple instances of the code (say customers).

Not quite and by a margin, there's only one source producing updates so 
you remove all the issues to do with conflicts and merging. It's not 
rocket science really, if you have a telly or a set top box that 
provides program guide info (even if just "what's on now and next") 
there's a very good chance that that's how it works. And it does work, 
on half the brain of a 20th century mobile phone.

> Won't this resurrect the 'version' permathread?

Here's to hoping that it doesn't :)

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• References:
  • RE: funny parser
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: funny parser
• Next by Date: RE: how to skip parsing of a subtree?
• Previous by thread: RE: funny parser
• Next by thread: RE: funny parser
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread