- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:22:12 +0100
- 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 UTC