|
Yeah, there is a compelling reason. First off, XML is no better than any other communications type. In fact, it requires a lot of negotiation and implied agreement just to get it working. You have to agree on the tags and content of those tags just to get things started. For a good discussion of some of XML's shortcomings, you might want to read my recent article: http://www.mcpressonline.com/mc?1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@.6b1994a0 Second, XML is very fat, especially if you use SOAP. A typical SOAP message has 700 bytes of overhead. When I'm only sending an account number, that's a lot of useless overhead clogging the network. There's a reason why modem manufacturers take the time to determine the fastest speed available. No, if we had a simple standard header that allowed two computers to identify their fastest common communication mode, we'd be able to reduce a lot of the clutter. Joe > From: Niall.Smart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > That sounds like a lot of development overhead and complexity, instead of > getting machines to negotiate on an agreeable data format, just get > everything to talk XML. Unless of course there is a compelling reason > not to!
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.