ng we could
divvy up the source tree, each do a subset of the
unimaginative-but-tedious edits, and create patches for Scott to
commit. I'd be willing and able to do some of that kind of grunt
work.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter)PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 2573 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
the latest nightly CVS snapshot would at least give a
minor piece of relief on that score.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter)PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 2573 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
markably and consistently like 200ms.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter)PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 2573 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
ut here is a pointer to a patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=soap-user&m=104447554215308&w=2
Here's come take-it-or-leave-it commentary on performance savings:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=soap-dev&m=103230079704759&w=2
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter)PGP 0x91865
TTP.
I developed this for something a while back and ended up ultimately not
using it, so it sort of stands on its own now. I know of no
problems/issues with it except as mentioned in comments within.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter)PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 2573 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F
> Theoretically, there's no limit. But depending on how the SOAP runtime
> deals with the messages, there may be a limit imposed by your system's
> memory: i.e., if the SOAP runtime tries to load the message into memory
> before processing. You'll need a stream-based processor to deal with
> unlimi
>> Caught SOAPException (SOAP-ENV:Client): Parsing error, response was:
>> An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x1) was found in the element
> This is a guess, but you may need to have the bytes that make up the
> image be
> within a cdata tag, or use base64 encoding.
> Most likely there is a c
>> Exception in thread "main" [SOAPException: faultCode=SOAP-ENV:Client;
>> msg=A &apo
>> s;http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/:Fault' element must
>> contain a:
>> 'faultcode' element.;
If I had a nickel for every time I've seen that exception.
For us, it has almost always meant that
> [Axis] offers better performance than Apache SOAP.
Do you know of any work actually comparing the performance of the
two? I see this claim sometimes, but when I ask about it I usually
get no response or "well, it's designed to be faster". I don't doubt
that Apache SOAP is slow; I just wonder
