|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Serialization of SOAP requestsI've got a new problem which I don't know how to address best. I've got a C# web service which is invoked by various SOAP clients. One of the clients performs some batch processing by accumulating many requests which are sent to the service by dedicated sequential calls. In order to speed up the processing by limiting the network overhead I would like to serialize the batch of SOAP requests, passing them at once to some wrapper of my service which would deserialize them, process them by the standard WS (locally) and serialize back the results to the calling client. What's the best way to parse the serialized SOAP requests? Cheers and thank you already! -- Marco -- > In order to speed up the processing by limiting the network overhead I I'm not following you. A SOAP request IS serialized (as XML). And a Web > would like to serialize the batch of SOAP requests, passing them at > once to some wrapper of my service which would deserialize them, > process them by the standard WS (locally) and serialize back the > results to the calling client. Service DOES deserialize them. -- Show quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer Ambiguity has a certain quality to it. <ma***@marcoganz.com> wrote in message news:1129284361.311199.70760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Hello there, > > I've got a new problem which I don't know how to address best. > > I've got a C# web service which is invoked by various SOAP clients. One > of the clients performs some batch processing by accumulating many > requests which are sent to the service by dedicated sequential calls. > > In order to speed up the processing by limiting the network overhead I > would like to serialize the batch of SOAP requests, passing them at > once to some wrapper of my service which would deserialize them, > process them by the standard WS (locally) and serialize back the > results to the calling client. > > What's the best way to parse the serialized SOAP requests? > > Cheers and thank you already! > > -- Marco -- > Hi Kevin,
let me explain better: I've got a webmethod f() which is called by several SOAP clients. Processing time for f() is very limited compared to the network overhead. One of the clients needs to call f() on a bunch of requests (x1...xn) so instead of calling f(x1), f(x2).. f(xn) sequentially (spending the connection setup time for each request) I could "pack" the requests and pass the resulting object (X) at once to a wrapper F(X) method which could "unpack" them and invoke f(xi) on the single requests locally on the server. F() would pack the single replies afterwards and send them back to the callee. Is it meaningful in your opinion? What I wonder is whether there's a way to specify that "X is an Array of f's parameters" reusing somehow the f's interface defition which the dotnet framework is usually hiding from me. Parallelizing the requests to f(xi) on the client side would mean dealing with threads in an environment which is outside my control so I'd prefer avoiding it. Cheers! I think you're introducing something into the mix which is more likely to
increase the load than to reduce it. The greatest latency issue is the HTTP Request/Response issue. Once on your server, yes, the Request has to be deserialized, but from then on it runs as fast as any .Net application, until it's time to reserialze and send the Response. "Packing" multiple serialized Requests adds another layer of overhead to the process. Your app will have to keep track of which Request belongs to which client and so on. And it will still have to deserialize the Requests in order to process them. So, IMHO, rather than optimizing it, you're adding another layer of overhead and complexity to it. Web Services is a lot slower than Remoting. Depending upon the needs of your clients, you might consider using Remoting instead, which offers binary serialization. And keep an eye out for Indigo. This will definitely take the place of both Web Services and Remoting, and perform better and more reliably than either. -- Show quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer Ambiguity has a certain quality to it. <ma***@marcoganz.com> wrote in message news:1129297534.036915.161580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi Kevin, > > let me explain better: I've got a webmethod f() which is called by > several SOAP clients. Processing time for f() is very limited compared > to the network overhead. > > One of the clients needs to call f() on a bunch of requests (x1...xn) > so instead of calling f(x1), f(x2).. f(xn) sequentially (spending the > connection setup time for each request) I could "pack" the requests and > pass the resulting object (X) at once to a wrapper F(X) method which > could "unpack" them and invoke f(xi) on the single requests locally on > the server. F() would pack the single replies afterwards and send them > back to the callee. > > Is it meaningful in your opinion? > > What I wonder is whether there's a way to specify that "X is an Array > of f's parameters" reusing somehow the f's interface defition which the > dotnet framework is usually hiding from me. > > Parallelizing the requests to f(xi) on the client side would mean > dealing with threads in an environment which is outside my control so > I'd prefer avoiding it. > > Cheers! >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics