Re: [xmlblaster] Native (socket) vs XML-RPC protocol for client implementation

[Marcel Ruff <mr at marcelruff.info>]

Michael Justin wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Currently my xmlBlaster client library for Delphi (planned for Free 
> Pascal also) uses a XML-RPC library which I want to replace by a new 
> solution because the XML-RPC lib is licensed under LGPL, so some 
> license restrictions apply for users of this solution.
>
> I would like to replace the communication protocol by native (socket) 
> TCP/IP which seems to have some advantages - if I understand correctly 
> the client uses only one socket to the message broker for outgoing and 
> incoming messages and does not have to open an XML-RPC server port for 
> the callback (which could cause firewall problems).
correct.
> But if there are good reasons which make XML-RPC a better approach, I 
> could also implement the library on top of another XML-RPC library 
> which has a more 'commercial friendly' license.
Tunneling outgoing connection over a proxy (squid) could be a benefit of 
XmlRpc
but it would definitely prefer SOCKET.
If choosing socket you can use the XBF formatting or the XmlScript 
formatting.
The XBF formatting is more dense and better performing.
> My client library for xmlBlaster does not expose the protocol layer, 
> so I am free to choose between native socket (which has some other 
> nice advantages also) and XML-RPC, however the native socket seems to 
> be more portable because it requires only a basic TCP/IP library.
>
> I am not sure which solution to choose, but are there any features in 
> the XML-RPC protocol version that make it the better choice compared 
> with the native protocol? (assuming that the implementation time does 
> not matter...)
>
> Best Regards


--
Marcel Ruff
http://www.xmlBlaster.org
http://watchee.net
Phone: +49 7551 309371