- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy
[snip]
> > 1. It might be reasonable to perform two passes over the result
> >
Timothy Peierls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >> That means the same data is buffered in memory (in various
>>> forms) a minimum of 4 times (!!). If the response contains
>>> large quantities of data, imagine the repercussions...
>
> I've observed significant overhead when
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy
[snip]
> The XML-RPC spec apparently does not take HTTP/1.1 int
[This message is a followup to a thread started by my original post
regarding the performance of the server provided by the Apache XML-RPC
Project (formerly the from Helma).]
Timothy Peierls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The spec is not exactly clear about whether comments and PIs
> are allowed,
John Wilson wrote:
> > > If you are sending well formed XML you can
> > > tell when the response has ended without it.
> From: "Timothy Peierls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Can you? Aren't comments and PIs allowed after the top level
> > tag is closed? Or is that an old, fixed XML spec bug?
John Wil
- Original Message -
From: "Timothy Peierls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy
> John Wilson wrote:
> > If you are sending well formed XML you can
>
Daniel Rall wrote:
>> That means the same data is buffered in memory (in various
>> forms) a minimum of 4 times (!!). If the response contains
>> large quantities of data, imagine the repercussions...
I've observed significant overhead when returning large result
objects. It used to be worse, b
Timothy Peierls wrote:
>John Wilson wrote:
>
>>Personally I hate it but I think it would be unwise to
>>break the spec.
>>
>
>Agreed. You can bet there's some client out there that relies
>on Content-length because the spec said it would be there (and
>that it would be correct).
>
Yes. For a mo
John Wilson wrote:
> If you are sending well formed XML you can
> tell when the response has ended without it.
Can you? Aren't comments and PIs allowed after the top level
tag is closed? Or is that an old, fixed XML spec bug?
> Personally I hate it but I think it would be unwise to
> break the
- Original Message -
From: "Hannes Wallnoefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy
> Yes, this is very unefficient for large resonses. The reason for doing
> it
Hannes Wallnoefer wrote:
>
> Yes, this is very unefficient for large resonses. The reason for doing
> it this way is that the XML-RPC says: "The Content-Length must be
> specified and must be correct." So we need the whole response to be
> packed before we can start sending headers.
>
> Now I d
Yes, this is very unefficient for large resonses. The reason for doing
it this way is that the XML-RPC says: "The Content-Length must be
specified and must be correct." So we need the whole response to be
packed before we can start sending headers.
Now I don't think this is really needed for
12 matches
Mail list logo
