From: jason r tibbetts Date: 2004-01-16T23:45:33+09:00 Subject: Re: Quick Input -- Sockets vs. HTTP Quoting Sam Roberts : > I don't know about Ruby's XML-RPC implementation, but there is nothing > about xml-rpc which would force you to do any kind of "invocation", > though I'm not to sure what you mean. The XML you posted looks very much > like what xml-rpc marshals calls and returns into, you could probably > just use the marshalling code. I second the suggestion of XML-RPC. Ruby's XML-RPC library (the standalone version--is it the same as the one in 1.8?) is quite elegant. In fact, I've just been writing an XML-RPC app in Java, and when I wrote a toy client in Ruby to access it, I sorely wished that I could have scrapped the Java one and used Ruby exclusively. But there are clients' needs that have to be taken into consideration. :( But back to your original question--socket-level communication may be cheaper and faster (execution-wise), but a little more trouble to maintain. HTTP, however, is easy. > Quoteing dhtapp@cox.net, on Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0900: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the thought. I'm keeping that on the back burner for now. I'd > > prefer to pass data only at this stage, without invoking anything > > directly... > > > > - dan > > > > > > "Joel VanderWerf" wrote in message > > news:400727B5.6080105@path.berkeley.edu... > > > dhtapp wrote: > > > > So, to anyone with more network programming experience in both Ruby > and > > > > Java, my question is: if you were in my position, which approach would > > you > > > > take? Or, maybe more appropriately, what kinds of questions should I > be > > > > asking myself to help make the determination? > > > > > > What about XML-RPC? That's in the ruby stdlib as of 1.8.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- jason :wq ___________________________________________________________ This mail sent using ToadMail -- Web based e-mail @ ToadNet