On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:14:18PM -0500, Isaac Richards wrote: > everything much more complicated than it really needs to be. If there's a > more standard system available that can replace the existing backend > protocol, I'm all for switching to that.
There are several RPC systems -- SOAP, Corba, DCOM (microsoft), XML-RPC and some older ones and some that are more specific to certain languages like C++. Your intuition is right that these protocols often start simple but get bloated the more people want features on them. In fact, XML-RPC was started in reaction to SOAP getting far from "Simple" as I recall. And then there are the non-RPC asynchronous message protocols but you may or may not need async messaging. Rolling your own protocol is of course always a risk (though I've done it myself a few times.) Your protocol is pretty simple, I banged together a not very robust perl implmentation in an hour or so which I posted a link to here yesterday. But having to do custom object serializers/deserializers is a pain of course. The big plus of a standard protocol of course is that people can rapidly write clients in a wide variety of languages, and the robustness of the protocol and libraries are somebody else's problem. The main downside is bulk.
_______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
