Stephen Waterbury wrote:
> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>> ... corba is 10-100 times faster over
>> the network than soap/xmlrpc. ...
>
> I'm not challenging these statistics (because I don't know),
> but I would be interested in the source. Are you referring
> to the results of an actual benchmark,
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
... corba is 10-100 times faster over
the network than soap/xmlrpc. ...
I'm not challenging these statistics (because I don't know),
but I would be interested in the source. Are you referring
to the results of an actual benchmark, or something more
subjective?
Steve
--
http
> Hmm. On inspection, pyro seems to be really heavy, what with its
> requirement of a pyro-nameserver, and using TCP as the transport.
The nameserver is purely optional. Regarding the overhead of transport -
well, I didn't check pyro on that, but corba is 10-100 times faster over
the network than
Thanks for your time everyone; I got it XMLRPC working over unix
domain stream sockets. In case people are interested, here's the
pieces I put together. I'm sure they throw away a little flexibility,
but they work for my purpose. Any pointers to make the code more
robust, or do less total overridin
[Sorry, I previously replied to Diez offlist, and probably to a
spam-protected address at that. Here's that reply and my followup
after reading up on pyro
]
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:08:31 -0600, Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:12:21 +0100, Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PR
> I've used the default support available by these classes. Thus it will
> run on a potentially public TCP/IP port. As the application backend
> allows, among other things, saving files to the local filesystem, this
> would be a clear security hole in the wild. Restricting it to
> localhost would b
