Not over http anyway. Perhaps using smtp or some type of messaging
middleware as the transport.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: SOAP Performance and when SOAP should be used
> 
> 
> Hi Radovan,
> 
> I also had a question regarding callbacks.  I don't see how callbacks 
> can be used currently with SOAP.  If a client makes a SOAP request to 
> the server and the process takes one hour, I can't hold the 
> connection for that long and thus will send the request 
> asynchronously.  When the job finishes on the server, how then is my 
> client called back and notified?  I see this as a current drawback to 
> SOAP due to the fact it isn't designed to handle these kind of 
> requests.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken.Crismon 
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: soap-user; janecek
> Cc: Ken.Crismon
> Subject: RE: SOAP Performance and when SOAP should be used
> 
> 
> Radovan,
> 
> I very interested in the notion of Transaction as you mentioned them
> below.
> 
> What exactly are you referring to???  
> 
> Is there a group working on transaction semantics for web services and
> workflow???
> 
> Thanks in advance for the information.
> 
> Ken Crismon
> RioLabs, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radovan Janecek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SOAP Performance and when SOAP should be used
> 
> 
> It is difficult to say what the performance of SOAP exactly is since 
> all
> the
> soap stacks rely on HTTP (or other) transport. HTTP is not fast and
> actually
> it means remarkable overhead in processing SOAP messages. So, I can 
> tell
> you
> that WASP does 500 messages per second, but this applies only to 
> WASP's
> embedded HTTP server. Tomcat is much more slower, other may be 
> faster...
> You
> probably have your own web server you want to use as a hosting
> environment
> for a SOAP stack...
> 
> As for the session management, it is not a part of the SOAP spec, but
> reasonable SOAP stack should offer this feature and still keep 
> transport
> independency.
> 
> I see no problem with callbacks to clients.
> 
> I agree that XML message size is a real issue.
> 
> I think that the advantages are great enough to use SOAP. Moreover, 
> SOAP
> is
> not alone. There is WSDL, UDDI, SOAP digital signatures, XKMS, ebXML
> (adopting SOAP), there will be workflow for web services, 
> transactions,
> and
> many other stuff. So, I would choose SOAP because I see the future in
> it.
> The only exception (imho) is an application that really need brutal
> performance.
> 
> Radovan
> 
> 
> Radovan Janecek
> VP, Engineering, Systinet  (formerly Idoox)
> http://www.systinet.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:47 PM
> Subject: SOAP Performance and when SOAP should be used
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > Can anyone point me to data comparing SOAP performance vs. RMI vs.
> > CORBA?  SOAP seems to be relatively speedy when dealing with short
> > synchronous requests w/very little to medium size data parameters.
> > I'm trying to determine given a certain architecture when SOAP would
> > be the proper mechanism.  What I believe SOAP has going for is that
> > it's an open standard (as opposed to CORBA implementations varying
> > depending on the vendor),self describing format (XML), low runtime
> > overhead (I don't have to do ORB/rmiregistry monitoring), language
> > independence (CORBA has, RMI does not), and allows for very thin
> > clients (SOAP XML parsing is all that is needed).  With all that in
> > mind there are disadvantages: At least on top of HTTP it follows a
> > request/reply protocol.  It might not be appropriate when doing
> > asynchronous requests that require callbacks to the client.  SOAP 
> has
> > no session management ability (although we could build that
> > ourselves), and the usual disadvantages of XML (overhead required 
> for
> > parsing, and increase in message size due to XML meta data).
> >
> > With all that in mind, I'm trying to compare the overhead 
> performance
> > cost of using SOAP. Given its advantages, are the great enough to
> > outweigh the potential performance issues?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Chuck King
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
> >
> > This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> > for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you
> > should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please
> > notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> > e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
> >
> > E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
> > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
> > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore
> > does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the 
> contents
> > of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If
> > verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This
> > message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
> > construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities 
> or
> > related financial instruments.
> >
> 
> 
> Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
> 
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only 
> for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you 
> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please 
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>  
> E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free 
> as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore 
> does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents 
> of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If 
> verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This 
> message is provided for informational purposes and should not be 
> construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or 
> related financial instruments.
> 

Reply via email to