Re: "Binary XML" proposals

["Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>]

"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.
> >
> 
> ABS
> 
> --
>                                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

sdw
-- 
sdw@lig.net  http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 
Dec2000