[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmlblaster] Protocol socket variant : XMLSocket



Marcel Ruff wrote:

Cyrille Giquello wrote:

Here is a peace of the Flash documentation say (from http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/action_scripts/actionscript_dictionary/actionscript_dictionary860.html)

The protocol is as follows:
- XML messages are sent over a full-duplex TCP/IP stream socket connection.
- Each XML message is a complete XML document, terminated by a zero byte.
- An unlimited number of XML messages can be sent and received over a single XMLSocket connection.


Perhaps it is not so hard to implements that protocol in XmlBlaster.
It looks like XmlBlaster's Socket plugin, with xml message against binary message.


It shouldn't be too hard to use the flash XMLSocket.

In xmlBlaster (current svn) we have two ways to serialize messages and to unpack them
again, one is the XML markup of the xmlBlaster XmlScriptParser framework and the other
is the more binary SOCKET (XbfParser) formatting, see


xmlBlaster/src/java/org/xmlBlaster/util/xbformat/XmlScriptParser.java
(http://www.xmlblaster.org/xmlBlaster/doc/requirements/client.script.html)



xmlBlaster/src/java/org/xmlBlaster/util/xbformat/XbfParser.java
(http://www.xmlblaster.org/xmlBlaster/doc/requirements/protocol.socket.html)



We use both pluggable in our 'email' protocol layer, the XbfParser for the SOCKET protocol,
so they are well tested.

Thanks Marcel for those good news ;o)

Do you think it could be nice/possible to add an option to the Socket protocol for switching the serializer/unserializer between binary/xml ? Or may we do another protocol plugin ?

cyrille.


regards Marcel


Is that new protocol plugin could be use with other technology like Ajax ?
Do you think this new protocol should be pertinent for XmlBlaster's futur ?
Do you think that it could be hard to implement it ?
Has some of you can do it in one or two days ? If not, I've to do it, but I'm not a Java agile programmer, so I will be very slow ...


thanks for discusses,
cyrille.