> An example of being too inefficient would be sending > binary data over XML. Encoding a file into base64 when > it used to be possible to send binary is a huge > performance hit and would be unacceptable. Of course > there are better ways, I'm just using this as an example.
I don't know whether it would be an unacceptable performance hit, though. Again, what we lose in performance we may gain in other areas. XML isn't an optimal data transfer format in any case, from a perspective of performance, but that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on. > So you are suggesting creating a socket and sending a > block of XML, using SOAP to a process listening on the > same machine, that does the actual work is a decent > solution? Networking socket overhead alone would make > this not a viable solution for a multiuser application. > The joke being the irony of the double work of parsing > an xml packet, that is instructing a program how do > parse an xml packet, then actually parsing the xml > packet, and passing it back as...what? My sense of > humor may be odd though :) There's no reason you have to involve the network stack in this - there are plenty of other mechanisms for inter-process communication on a single machine. I think it's worth pointing out, though, that a lot of communication on a single machine does often use networking - for example, when you run CFMX, your web server receives a request, forwards it to the JRun connector, which then sends it to the CF server, which is listening on a different port on your own machine. The inefficiency of doing this is balanced, I suppose, by the fact that you can easily put the listening process on another machine without rewriting your application architecture. > In reference to the msxml comparison, msxml needs one > line to actually open a connection and get the xml from > within CF. Using Java it takes like 20 lines. Actually > parsing the XML in java is unnecessary with CF (unlike > http, which is required because of cfhttp's deficiencies), > but parsing XML with Java is so incredibly complex as to > be not worth it, at least not for the price range of our > clients. Given that CF itself is written in Java, it seems that you don't necessarily have a problem with XML parsing in Java, but simply with the Java XML parsing interfaces you've used. 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
