Re: Re: [ANN] XINS 1.3 supports XML-RPC
Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.rpc.specification |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ernst de Haan wrote:
> The -pre1 version I just uploaded this morning should work well. If
> you do find XSLT errors, please let me know, because then we sure
> didn't find them!
I will if I find them back... cvs updating didn't show me differences
which surprises me a bit...
>> IOException instead of a decent xml-rpc fault saying missing params).
>>
> I've submitted a bug report for this:
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1371632&group_id=71598&atid=531814
>
Thanks... can quote the someone if you wish... sourceforge user polx in
case.
>> Two more questions:
>> - how much do you support keep-alive connections ? We have been using XML-RPC library in settings where as much as 300-500 queries a second happen so keep-alive is an important factor.
>>
> XINS 1.3 does not support Keep-alive connections and there are
> currently no plans to include this feature in XINS 1.4. However, with enough interest, we may investigate feasability of including it in XINS 1.4. In the past, we have done some research on using Keep-alive, based on these RFEs:
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1088277&group_id=71598&atid=531817
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1088278&group_id=71598&atid=531817
> Our conclusion was that support for Keep-alive requires significant
> research, in order to make sure it can be configured properly and
> behaves as expected and configured. On the other hand, the overhead of creating a new HTTP connection is re latively small, especially on a low-latency internal 100Mbit/1Gbit network.
>
Right... but when you use web-services from a far-away client browser,
it's considerably higher... add to it a few proxies underway...
Is it harder on the client or on the server ?
On the server we shall be using Tomcat anyways which does make his own
management of keep-alive, I believe (am I wrong?). It should, thus,
"just" be done for the client where, I though, Http-Client should be
somewhat friendly.
Note also that XML-RPC is particularly keep-alive savvy since it
requires the content-length both at request and response... this is a
fact that has annoyed a large amount of people but allows very nice
connection management...
paul
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/