[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: "Stephen D. Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Al B. Snell" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:25:36 -0400
"Al B. Snell" wrote:
> We use HTTP for RPCs, anyway? Being able to reuse Apache isn't a great
> win. It's easy to listen on a port, perform some kind of authentication on
> incoming connections, then just choose a scheme for delimiting requests
> and an error-signalling system for use in response. Voila!
On the other hand, a common, shared, messaging queue would be more
efficient in both network and server resources compared to anything else
unless only a single message/response is needed.
> One thing TCP does that's annoying is emulating a serial stream when you
> really do want a packetized RPC interface. Basically, the implementation
> goes to a lot of effort buffering - including delaying the delivery of
> arrived packets to the userland code until a lost packet is retransmitted
> - which you then undo by shoving in delimeters.
Have you ever enjoyed the horrors of X.25 programming? I ported one
application that had a protocol that assumed that X.25 packet framing
was available. What a nightmare! I was saved only because it supported
an echo command that I could use after every real command to know when
it's data was complete. The protocol has to be self-framing or you lose
your mind at some point.
> > Vassilis.
> Alaric B. Snell
> http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
> Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax