From: | cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Jason M(dot) Felice" <jfelice(at)cronosys(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, version 7.4/8.0 |
Date: | 2003-03-28 18:36:43 |
Message-ID: | 20030328183643.9E7BA56038@cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jason wrote:
> If you can support xmlrpc instead, you'll save yourself a lot of headaches.
XML-RPC has three merits over SOAP:
1. It's a simple specification, and thus readily implemented.
2. Microsoft and IBM aren't fighting over control over it, so it's
not suffering from the "we keep adding pseudo-standards to it"
problem. (Which further complicates the specifications.)
You can have a /complete/ implementation of XML-RPC, whereas,
for SOAP, you can hold ghastly long arguments as to what SOAP
means, anyways.
3. There's a (perhaps not "standard", but definitely widely
implemented) scheme for bundling multiple XML-RPC requests into
one message, which improves latency a LOT for small messages.
Of course, CORBA has actually been quite formally standardized, suffers
from many fairly interoperable implementations, and is rather a lot less
bloated than any of the XML-based schemes. It might be worth trying,
too...
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/soap.html
I just got skylights put in my place. The people who live above me are
furious.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason M. Felice | 2003-03-28 18:52:20 | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, version 7.4/8.0 |
Previous Message | Jason M. Felice | 2003-03-28 17:17:57 | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, version 7.4/8.0 |