On 19 Feb 2001 13:54:34 -0600, Brandon wrote: > A SOAP (or XML-RPC, which is way more simple) adapter would be useful as > the infamous client protocol since we don't have to write a client > protocol, just expose an API.
I agree that this would be an excellent use of SOAP within the FN scheme. Lots of work on both sides of the fence (MS and Java) in the area of webservices will make programming clients easier. > For node communication, though, I fear it would be too slow. Port 80 > tunneling doesn't usually require the protocol be XML, so any form of HTTP > encapsulation should be fine, in which case I would recommend that we just > use FNP over HTTP. I believe there's work being done on a binary XML protocol to help address the message size stuff but your right that with XML that is always an issue. My thinking on node-to-node communication is that standard XML and SOAP would be harder to distinguish than raw FNP and thus less likely to get filtered out if freenet becomes very successful (to the extent say that Napster became successful on college campuses, etc...) Since many, many services will (allegedly) utilize SOAP it would be a painful decision for any organization to eliminate SOAP messages outright on their networks. Will _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
