Here is a suggestion. If we are going to change the communication protocol, why not go really simple and use YAML?
This is a serious suggestion. XML is inherently bulky. YAML is becoming well supported throughout the various modern languages, and it cuts down on the bandwidth required to transmit a request. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] BareMetal.com Inc. http://baremetal.com/ Software Development Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received 2003-10-27 from 'Tim Woodcock': > This is going to be very inflamatory, but there are a few things I have to > say. > > ... > > "SOAP" and simple do not belong together in the same sentence. > > If you want simple, XML is ok. But SOAP is a way of adding software > context on top of data. That is not simplicity. > > It would be fairly easy for tucows to add SSL to the existing system. > SSLeay can be used to do this. > > I am not opposed to seeing SSL in the registration system, possibly as an > optional access method... However, you'll find this slows domain > registrations down. The current mechanism is designed for speed. Since > most of the information that runs in plain text is available in plain text > anyway via whois, who cares? > > ... > > Now.. SOAP. > > Somebody on this list told me a while ago that EPP was SOAP. Silly me, I > believed them. > > Epp is not SOAP. EPP is an XML protocol, very much like the XCP protocol > that OpenSRS currently uses. The client sends XML commands in a stream, > and the server reads and decodes the commands. > > This mechanism is simple. > > With soap, you can probably do the same streaming, but the means of > decoding the data is encoded in the data stream. IMHO, this is dangerous. > It definetly does not qualify as simple. It requires an additional layer > of complexity on both sides. Frankly, I see no point. > > I believe what you actually want is a standard library for translating > to/from the XML or, from the other point of view, to/from a native > structure. > > But since this is what you already have... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] > BareMetal.com Inc. http://baremetal.com/ > Software Development Team > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message received 2003-10-27 from 'Fagyal, Csongor': > > > Adam Selene wrote: > > > > >SOAP over SSL would be the simplest and most standard, > > >I can't believe how long this request has been left unanswered. > > >TuCows, > > > > > Yep. Actually I found this more important than the CGIs (brrr!) - Tucows > > should have started with a standard interface _first_, and do the CGIs > > later (or not at all... but that is my personal opinion, and not a very > > marketing-friendly one :-)). > > > > > fire your Perl programmers and hire someone with > > >clue. > > > > > > > > You are bad :-) "When in doubt, blame the programmer." I guess they > > simply do what they are told, and as fast as much they are paid. > > > > However, I also think it should be fairly easy to take the current > > server side processing modules and glue them to SOAP. It's just some > > action mapping and that's all... Upload it to the test environment, the > > community tests it, and nobody gets hurt ;-). > > > > - Cs. > > > > >
