I think compression is a much better idea than stripping envelopes and headers. But even compression can cause serious ramifications if you need to use signatures.
I repeat, the best approach is to accept that XML is verbose and make sure that your network can handle it. A few extra hundred bytes is negligible. Keep in mind that the network is not the bottleneck -- XML processing is the bottleneck. Anne On 6/17/05, Keith Hatton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sure if you search the list archive for "gzip" or "compression" you > will find some useful stuff on using zip compression in the HTTP > transport that's supported by many clients and servers. > > Hope this helps > Keith > > > -----Original Message----- > From: praveen sripati [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 June 2005 02:44 > To: [email protected]; Anne Thomas Manes > Subject: Re: FW: Reduce XML data transfer > > > > Anne, > > Some of the commercial SOAP toolkits have optimization > where complete or part of the SOAP message (like > header) is stripped off to make the size of the > payload small. This kind of optimization is good, when > both the Web Service Provider and the Consumer use the > same SOAP toolkit because stripping off a part of the > SOAP messages will make it a invalid SOAP message. > > Maybe we will see such optimization in Axis. > > Cheers, > Praveen > > --- Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is a function of XML. You just have to deal > > with it. Your message > > must include the full namespace URIs in the > > namespace declarations -- > > they are in fact defining aliases. These namespace declarations (e.g., > > > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope";) > > permit you > > to specify "soapenv" rather than > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; later in the message. > > > > There is no way to avoid it. > > > > If these few extra bytes are a real problem for you, > > then you should > > try using a binary protocol rather than an XML > > protocol. But I can't > > think why this would be a real problem for you. Even > > a tiny device > > shouldn't have an issue with the extra bytes > > (working on the > > assumption that the device supports XML). Network > > bandwidth is now > > vitually free. > > > > Anne > > > > On 6/16/05, Amihai Fuks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've recently started to use SOAP and as I can see > > the XML response has > > > a huge overhead. All I can see there are long tags > > that approximately > > > make the response 100 times longer. Can I reduce > > tags like: > > > > > > <soapenv:Envelope > > > > > > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; > > > xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; > > > > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";> > > > > > > There must be a sort of way to alias these long > > tags. > > > > > > Amihai > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com >
