[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: