Surely building mythsoap as an optional integration abstraction layer has little or no impact upon the existing protocol. This is what I thought was originally proposed by Adam, and I'm still interested in helping make it happen.
Despite it's bulky nature, XML is superb to program against from a productivity perspective, and in most cases the marshalling of XML messages vs binary messages doesn't add too much latency. Overhauling the mythprotocol to use UPnP would be a fairly intensive effort, but would seem to be a forward looking endeavour. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Kenyon Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 14:59 To: Development of mythtv Subject: Re: [mythtv] MythSOAP Expressions Of Interest On Monday 21 February 2005 22:48, Brad Templeton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:14:18PM -0500, Isaac Richards wrote: > > everything much more complicated than it really needs to be. If > > there's a more standard system available that can replace the > > existing backend protocol, I'm all for switching to that. > > There are several RPC systems -- SOAP, Corba, DCOM (microsoft), > XML-RPC and some older ones and some that are more specific to certain > languages like C++. i would have thought that the uPNP framework was a perfect fit for this -- simon _______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list mythtv-dev@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
_______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list mythtv-dev@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev