> > Unless I'm overlooking something, I think SOAP is a little overkill for > > Xindice > > since the data returned will most likely always be XML and not a datatyped > > response. > > What do you guys think? > > The one thing that is appealing about SOAP is that it supports multiple > encodings so it would enable something like our XML:DB API impl to > negotiate with the server to use a binary encoding while less intelligent > clients use regular encodings. Right now one of the benefits of the CORBA > API is that it doesn't parse the document if it doesn't have too, with > SOAP you could achieve the same thing. We could actually achieve the same > effect with XML-RPC through a method on a parameter, but that alters the > interface.
Good point. > That being said, I really prefer to take as simple of an approach as > possible to start with and that is really XML-RPC. So I'm +1 for XML-RPC. > > > > > Apache XML-RPC does have a web server class that could probably handle > > some of the other concerns about using HTTP as the transport: > > > > 1. ability to deny requests based on remote IP > > 2. SSL support > > > > SSL is going to be required when security is implemented , otherwise db > > usernames and passwords > > would be sent in plain text. > > > > For the next release I think we should just keep the existing HTTP server. > The current XML-RPC interface is really simple in that scenario. We can > look at moving to something else once we start to convert over to Avalon. That being said, do you think that the server authentication will be a product of a 1.x release or a 2.0 release? > > The two server "plugins" both use the HTTP server. (HTTP Doc retrieval > > and > > the XML-RPC plugin). > > > > Speaking of the XML-RPC plugin, I apologize for not having a download > > available. I will have some > > CVS updates and hopefully a download later today: > > Do you want to continue to own this piece? I'm thinking we use the > existing interface as a starting point and roll it into the server for the > next release. Thoughts? Yes, yes, and yes. ;-) > We should reexamine the details of the API but it's a really simple place > to start. I'm comfortable with proposing you for commit based on your > existing work if you want to continue improving on it? Sounds good to me. Kurt _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
