Re: HTTP::Daemon and broken pipes

It seems like you are reinventing SOAP. Have you considered using SOAP::Lite?

Comment on Re: HTTP::Daemon and broken pipes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: HTTP::Daemon and broken pipes by dash2 (Hermit) on Feb 19, 2002 at 14:22 UTC
Hi Randal I did consider it, and XML-RPC also. The decision against was basically that I didn't want to return more than a '200 OK' on messages, whereas XML-RPC (and SOAP IIRC) are basically 2 way messaging systems, where you send a request and get a meaningful response. I wanted to be able to use a one-way system, where nodes could send responses async... ascynchr... later on if they wanted to. maybe I should have, and there's no reason that the transport couldn't be subclassed to use SOAP (or indeed JXTA, Freenet etc. etc.)... but still, right now, I have loads of cool code that is stuck because i can't figure out how to make HTTP::Daemon recover correctly from a SIGPIPE... dave hj~	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: HTTP::Daemon and broken pipes
by dash2 (Hermit) on Feb 19, 2002 at 14:22 UTC

I did consider it, and XML-RPC also. The decision against was basically that I didn't want to return more than a '200 OK' on messages, whereas XML-RPC (and SOAP IIRC) are basically 2 way messaging systems, where you send a request and get a meaningful response. I wanted to be able to use a one-way system, where nodes could send responses async... ascynchr... later on if they wanted to.

maybe I should have, and there's no reason that the transport couldn't be subclassed to use SOAP (or indeed JXTA, Freenet etc. etc.)... but still, right now, I have loads of cool code that is stuck because i can't figure out how to make HTTP::Daemon recover correctly from a SIGPIPE...

dave hj~

[reply]