Here is a suggestion.
If we are going to change the communication protocol, why not go really
simple and use YAML?
This is a serious suggestion. XML is inherently bulky.
YAML is becoming well supported throughout the various modern languages,
and it cuts down on the bandwidth required to transmit a request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Woodcock twoodcock@baremetal.com
BareMetal.com Inc. http://baremetal.com/
Software Development Team
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message received 2003-10-27 from 'Tim Woodcock':
> This is going to be very inflamatory, but there are a few things I have to
> say.
>
> ...
>
> "SOAP" and simple do not belong together in the same sentence.
>
> If you want simple, XML is ok. But SOAP is a way of adding software
> context on top of data. That is not simplicity.
>
> It would be fairly easy for tucows to add SSL to the existing system.
> SSLeay can be used to do this.
>
> I am not opposed to seeing SSL in the registration system, possibly as an
> optional access method... However, you'll find this slows domain
> registrations down. The current mechanism is designed for speed. Since
> most of the information that runs in plain text is available in plain text
> anyway via whois, who cares?
>
> ...
>
> Now.. SOAP.
>
> Somebody on this list told me a while ago that EPP was SOAP. Silly me, I
> believed them.
>
> Epp is not SOAP. EPP is an XML protocol, very much like the XCP protocol
> that OpenSRS currently uses. The client sends XML commands in a stream,
> and the server reads and decodes the commands.
>
> This mechanism is simple.
>
> With soap, you can probably do the same streaming, but the means of
> decoding the data is encoded in the data stream. IMHO, this is dangerous.
> It definetly does not qualify as simple. It requires an additional layer
> of complexity on both sides. Frankly, I see no point.
>
> I believe what you actually want is a standard library for translating
> to/from the XML or, from the other point of view, to/from a native
> structure.
>
> But since this is what you already have...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Woodcock twoodcock@baremetal.com
> BareMetal.com Inc. http://baremetal.com/
> Software Development Team
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message received 2003-10-27 from 'Fagyal, Csongor':
>
> > Adam Selene wrote:
> >
> > >SOAP over SSL would be the simplest and most standard,
> > >I can't believe how long this request has been left unanswered.
> > >TuCows,
> > >
> > Yep. Actually I found this more important than the CGIs (brrr!) - Tucows
> > should have started with a standard interface _first_, and do the CGIs
> > later (or not at all... but that is my personal opinion, and not a very
> > marketing-friendly one :-)).
> >
> > > fire your Perl programmers and hire someone with
> > >clue.
> > >
> > >
> > You are bad :-) "When in doubt, blame the programmer." I guess they
> > simply do what they are told, and as fast as much they are paid.
> >
> > However, I also think it should be fairly easy to take the current
> > server side processing modules and glue them to SOAP. It's just some
> > action mapping and that's all... Upload it to the test environment, the
> > community tests it, and nobody gets hurt ;-).
> >
> > - Cs.
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:48 EDT