[Top][All Lists]

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

[Gnumed-devel] re: storage mechanism dependence.

From: sjtan
Subject: [Gnumed-devel] re: storage mechanism dependence.
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:28:29 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030630

I'm not sure what the advantages of
xml-rpc are.
It is more lightweight.

I think it's a lot slower too; a client would probably have to be pipelined and make asynchronous calls to xml-rpc if the rpc interface retrieves too small bits of data, if it wants a reasonable response time.
 You also won't know as a client that
a usage of an interface has the wrong syntax until a call is made, as
opposed to a failure to compile if a client side stub is compiled.

If data-aware is just a more appealing phrase for
storage-mechanism-dependant I am not particularly thrilled.

Does SQL rule?
LDAP is the only current storage alternative to sql discussed , and it might already have a sql interface; there's a lot more storage-mechanism dependance AND implementation-dependance in
the current code by using postgresql triggers and pgsql language module.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]