> It's a physical impossibility to pass xml data as > efficiently as passing data over a COM interface. > I accept that SOAP is a viable replacement for DCOM, > but not COM itself.
If you're defining efficiency as speed, you're absolutely correct. However, the general acceptance of XML should indicate that people are often more concerned with things other than speed, such as the use of (relatively human-readable) text formats instead of requiring binary compatibility. > Especially when with all the "industries investment in > Java" that is supposed to be a big reason we love Java > now, nobody in Javaland has come up with as efficient > an interface as MSXML. Just the thought of using a web > service to parse/and receive/send XML is laughable to me. What part is laughable? The part about using HTTP as a transport mechanism? There's nothing preventing the use of other transport mechanisms for SOAP requests. Or the part about XML parsing? People seem to be doing that just fine without MSXML, in general. And, of course, using SOAP in .NET programs uses the MS parser, I'm sure, so again, I'm missing something here. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
