On Sunday 20 February 2005 09:35 pm, Adam Jenkins wrote: > Good points. I'd love to hear your thoughts in regards to these issues as > I'm still lacking in knowledge. > > >>this would move to _requiring_ the backend to be running > > Would that be only if they wanted to use the integration (SOAP) layer, or > all the time?
To me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have multiple methods of getting at the same data. If anything goes in, it has to be able to replace the existing frontend<->backend protocol. Multiple methods is just asking for multiple bugs. > >>my concern is that SOAP (like anything using XML) adds a lot of > >>size + parsing complexity > > In regards to parsing complexity, do you mean development or during > runtime? As most SOAP binding systems these days are designed to be > reasonably transparent to the implementing system, development time is > relatively trivial (just supply a WSDL file and binding points). In > regards to runtime parsing, the soap toolkit from apache has acheived some > really good benchmarks (they've upgrade to SAX). Runtime parsing. > With respect to size, are you talking memory footprint or actual deployment > size? Would making it an optional module would help here? Size of the wire protocol. Only way to get it down to something reasonable, really, is to add compression with just adds even _more_ time to how long it takes to parse. And as I said, I don't see the point of making it optional. Isaac _______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
