[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enhancement request for module HTTPXMLR4
Hi Thomas,
I haven't benchmarked the differences between parsing the XML stream
directly vs. saving it to the IFS and parsing it in a second step. Is
there a significant performance difference?
As for detecting the difference between SOAP vs. MIME, that should be
extraordinarily simple. Just call http_header() to get the
content-type. For MIME (Soap with attachments) it should have a
content-type of multipart/related (if you want to make it more generic,
just search for "multipart").
Perhaps we should have an http_url_post_mime()... if the data isn't
multipart, that routine would work very similarly to
http_url_post_raw2(). But if the data is multipart, it breaks things up
into parts, and sends those to callbacks, as if you called
http_url_post_raw2() separately for each "part" of the "multipart" message.
Thomas Raddatz wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> What you suggested is almost the same of what I have in mind. The main
> difference is that I want to
> to avoid writing an IFS file in case that is is a 'simple' SOAP message
> with no attachments. In that case I want to forward the HTTP response
> stream directly to the parser. That means that the receiving callback
> procedure have to recognize the incoming HTTP stream and the forward it
> either to the parser or to an IFS file. Is that a reasonable idea?
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list. To unsubscribe, please go to:
http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------