Just out of curiosity, Jim...why is SOAP too complicated for this? We've had great success using SOAP to send and receive XML, and it was pretty simple to implement.
Seems like you are trying to do all the work that SOAP has already done for you. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:04 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments? >> >> The only thing I would disagree with would be this: >> >> >I could also take the route some have and attempt to minimize the >> >dialect (just use "d", "t" and "f" instead of "data", "type" and >> >"fields" and use single digits to represent the data types) but as >> much >space as that would save it's always just annoyed me... >> >> Only because XML is supposed to be human readable. > > Yeah - it's always annoyed me as well... but some people get really > uptight > about it. > >> Aside from that, and that fact that they are forcing you to reinvent the >> wheel, it seems like it would be really flexible for different types of >> data. > > Thanks... that's what I hope. > > Jim Davis > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169328 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
