Why not HTTP?

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #122,766 by tablizer 10/24/03 11:06:10 PM Reply	Why not HTTP? I'm looking more for reasons not to do HTTP as well, I guess. What is wrong with HTTP? Anything else and you risk fire-wall problems. Server admins don't like special requests for "odd ports" at many companies. Simply use POST to send XML or comma-delimited text. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #122,775 by admin 10/25/03 12:19:08 AM Reply	Read the problem description. No firewalls are involved. While you are correct that firewalls preclude anything other than HTTP for the most part, this is entirely internal on our LAN. If you want to have real fun, try building a bi-directional persistent comm link between a client browser and an internal server through a firewall, when the internal server is actually a load-balanced non-clustered web farm. ;-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #122,825 by tablizer 10/25/03 5:13:44 PM Reply	You didn't qualify "too much overhead" Nothing is going to be an exact match to your desired performance or interface requirements. If you are sending streams of a gazillion little transactions, can some of them be grouped together so that packet overhead is less? Or, does each one need a reply before the next one is sent? These details are left out. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #122,828 by admin 10/25/03 7:36:35 PM Reply	Packet overhead doesn't matter. Computational overhead does matter. The transactions are uncoupled. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Communication between two servers. - (admin) - (39) - Oct. 20, 2003, 09:23:06 AM EDT

SOAP - (ChrisR) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:39:16 AM EDT

Right, that's what I'm trying to avoid. - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:44:22 AM EDT

Welcome to my life -NT - (drewk) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:47:47 AM EDT

Stupid Object Asskiss Protocol -NT - (tuberculosis) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:13:48 PM EDT

SOAP is one those decent ideas... - (ChrisR) - (4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 04:13:34 PM EDT

A decent idea? - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 04:49:41 PM EDT

Valid complaint - (ChrisR) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:09:00 PM EDT

In fairness, - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 20, 2003, 07:00:33 PM EDT

No, she's a dog - (tuberculosis) - Oct. 20, 2003, 06:52:00 PM EDT

Quick alphabet soup translation: - (jb4) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:49:48 AM EDT

Java Messaging Service - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:51:21 AM EDT

Danke -NT - (jb4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:00:07 PM EDT

roll own xinted service? - (deSitter) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:58:24 AM EDT

Just remember--anything manual can be automated - (FuManChu) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:05:20 AM EDT

Well, that's what I meant. - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:09:08 AM EDT

I lean towards sockets as well - (tjsinclair) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:00:35 PM EDT

Remember there's C++ on the other end. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:05:20 PM EDT

Name one: - (folkert) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:21:06 PM EDT

I'm guessing the answer will be: - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:06:56 PM EDT

4. CORBA connection but same objection as JMS Go with socket -NT - (boxley) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:43:09 AM EDT

My Gut reaction tells me: - (folkert) - (9) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:01:46 PM EDT

We have plenty of socket servers here already. - (admin) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:06:09 PM EDT

Sockets can stream, http does not, its connectionless - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:24:11 PM EDT

HTTP 1.1 supports pipelining, FYI. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:46:07 PM EDT

YALOP - (folkert) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:12:26 PM EDT

Agreed - (deSitter) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:19:38 PM EDT

Why not HTTP? - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 24, 2003, 11:06:10 PM EDT

Read the problem description. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 25, 2003, 12:19:08 AM EDT

You didn't qualify "too much overhead" - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 25, 2003, 05:13:44 PM EDT

Packet overhead doesn't matter. - (admin) - Oct. 25, 2003, 07:36:35 PM EDT

DECNet Mailboxes. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:12:30 PM EDT

AHHH! NO!!! - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:16:29 PM EDT

Silence, heretic. - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:23:32 PM EDT

Socket to me - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:25:08 PM EDT

Why the daemon: - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:56:20 PM EDT

Not an answer then, but a plan of attack :) - (FuManChu) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:03:37 PM EDT

Complicated political situation. - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:05:20 PM EDT

You mean you're not king? - (tuberculosis) - Oct. 20, 2003, 06:56:01 PM EDT

Tuxedo/Java Jolt? - (gdaustin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 03:11:19 PM EDT

You signed the Memo of Understanding...!
62 ms