W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Question re: XML embedding in XML-dist protocols

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:22:12 +0100
Message-ID: <39194664.6F7DB91B@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Many thanks for all the replies.

I'm aware of ICE but hadn't considered it a general RPC mechanism before. It seems to do the XML transport bit for me but not the standardised
encoding of other call parameters. I'll have to take another look.

Doing a custom encoding type in SOAP is fine for a one-off solution and I may go that way but I'm still interested in whether a more general common
solution can be adopted.

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> This argument seems to favor less structured (regions in)
> serialization schemes, however, I think that there may be a lot to be
> gained from more structured (ie. structure that is understood by the
> core protocol) serialization. In this case, you would need a marker
> (like embedded-xml) to signal protocol-level parsers to treat the tree
> underneath as a literal string

Good point. However, it seems to me a general solution for XML RPC should make embedded XML node trees a first-class data type, rather than just
embedding literal strings. For example, I might as well have the protocol-level parser generate  the parse tree for my embedded nodes rather than
have to re-run the parse on an embedded string literal. Especially if these could get very large.

Thanks again for the suggestions.
Dave Reynolds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories    | Phone: +44-117-3128165
Filton Road, Stoke Gifford      | FAX:   +44-117-3128924
Bristol BS34 8QZ, UK            | der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2000 07:21:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT