Re: Article: Fat protocols slow Web services

I think this all goes to show that it's generally not safe to
generalize. :)

> 2) Secure. Performance speed is generally not an issue with messaging
> systems

Perhaps not for AOL-style instant messaging, but most definitely for
publish/subscribe type messaging used, e.g., in financial services
applications -- speed there is critical. 

> Messaging
> systems defer type conversion to later dedicated queuing in processing as a
> decoupled operation.

Same can be done using "document style" SOAP messaging.

> In general RPC transactions are the obverse of this - you have to maintain a
> connection

Most popular RPC systems -- ONC RPC, DCE RPC (DCOM) -- are primarily
over UDP.

> you have to encrypt/decrypt

Only if you want it.  And if you want/need it, certainly there's a cost.

> themselves, work fine, but overall contribute to the degradation of the
> networks.

Spam sent over SMTP is degrading the network way more than XML

> People express a lot of concern about broadband multimedia connections (to
> the extent that network adminstrators routinely block multimedia mime-types
> because of the way that it degrades performance) but with web services I
> suspect that quicktime files will be the least of our worries.

Imminent death of the network predicted; GIFs at 11 :)
PS:  connectionless http?  Not since 1.0 ...
Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 21:22:10 UTC