Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> Since SOAP 1.2 is defined on the infoset, it presupposes that a parser
> has done its work ... AFAIK, that doesn't imply an XML syntax
> parser, just one that produces XML Infosets.
The language in the spec is indeed quite clear on that point in section 4.2:
The binding framework does NOT require that every binding use the XML
1.0  serialization as the "on the wire" representation of the
Infoset; compressed, encrypted, fragmented representations and so on can
be used if appropriate.
I'm having trouble finding a SOAP toolkit that seems to be aware of this
paragraph however, which is a pity as experiments on SOAP performance
(which I am currently conducting) require that kind of low-level access
to the "on the wire" format.
> Of course, the "Horror of XML" makes facile and possibly unwarranted
> assumptions that the XML syntax is an bottleneck in web applications and
> web services. I'd recommend Sean McGrath's article at
> to anyone even THINKING about assuming this before profiling their code.
In some cases it does turn out to be the bottleneck, but it's true that
jumping to conclusions there is a bad idea.
Robin Berjon <email@example.com>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488