Re: [Freecats-Dev] Dan's API - SOAP

[Henri Chorand]

Michael wrote:
> The downside of the simplicity is that what goes over the wire
> has a lot of cruft in it which isn't strictly necessary -- it's not a
> binary protocol, it's XML with a lot of superfluous attributes and
> junk for the general case which don't help you in specific cases.

Of course, developing one's own binary protocol looks geekier, but who
cares?

And considering what I heard about XML recently, this should also be a
lasting option :-)


>  But (1) I believe you can compress it, and (2) for a TM server,
> I don't think bandwidth is the choke point.

We expect indexing and retrieval to be (potentially) the worst bottlenecks.

Compressing it (later) should do the trick.


> And (3) there's nothing wrong with supporting multiple access
> protocols (a bandwidth-efficient binary one among them) *later*,
> after the stuff already works, more or less.
>
> Shorter version: SOAP is a good choice in my opinion.

Well, your arguments look convincing enough.
Thanks for making it more understandable for us.
SOAP, SOAP... at least our cat s[oftware] will like it ;-)


Cheers,

Henri