RPC with Python - Comparison?

[Wolfgang Keller]

Hello,

has anyone done a comparison of the different RPC protocols &
implementations available for Python that is more extensive and exhaustive
than the one on
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...ary/ws-pyth9/?

Topics would be:

- Runtime efficiency
- Development efficiency
- Design concepts & features (security...)

Candidates could be:

- Pyro
- Twisted.spread
- OSE (XML-RPC)
- ICE
- ...others?

TIA,

Best regards

Wolfgang Keller

[has]

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

Candidates could be:

- Pyro
- Twisted.spread
- OSE (XML-RPC)
- ICE
- ...others?

MacPython also supports Apple events (high-level bridge:
<http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/appscript.html>)

HTH

[Wolfgang Keller]

>> Candidates could be:

- Pyro
I forgot to mention Corba here:

- Omniorb
- Orbit
- Fnorb

BTW: It seems to me that none of these provides an AMI implementation...?
- Twisted.spread
- OSE (XML-RPC)
- ICE
- ...others?

MacPython also supports Apple events (high-level bridge:
<http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/appscript.html>)

I know, but I was thinking of OS-independent RPC protocols. :-)

Best regards,

Wolfgang Keller

[has]

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

MacPython also supports Apple events

I know, but I was thinking of OS-independent RPC protocols. :-)

Pity, you're missing some good stuff... :/

[johng2001]

> Candidates could be:

- Pyro
- Twisted.spread
- OSE (XML-RPC)
- ICE
- ...others?

Anyone has any insights on REST Vs SOAP/XML-RPC? I have seen these
debates else where on the web. Just want to know what the view point
here is.

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:38:16 -0800, johng2001 wrote:

Anyone has any insights on REST Vs SOAP/XML-RPC? I have seen these debates
else where on the web. Just want to know what the view point here is.

I've seen people argue this point a bajillion times, and honestly, I think
the best insight is that there *is* no insight. Each of those three things
(XML-RPC is not the same as SOAP, it is *way* simpler with the associated
costs and benefits) are exactly what they look like, three entries on a
pretty typical cost/benefit scale, with the primary tradeoffs being
between ease of use and cross-platform/language. There's a time and a
place for each, they don't really overlap much, and people trying to fit
the world into the One True RPC, in my experience, generally only have
experience in one of the RPC domains and mistake their experience for
global truth.

[Wolfgang Keller]

Am 6 Dec 2004 16:00:35 -0800 schrieb has:

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

MacPython also supports Apple events

I know, but I was thinking of OS-independent RPC protocols. :-)

Pity, you're missing some good stuff... :/

_I_ _am_ using a Mac at home.

But not _everyone_ _else_ and especially not _every_ _company_ is using
_exclusively_ Macs.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Keller

[has]

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

Am 6 Dec 2004 16:00:35 -0800 schrieb has:

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

MacPython also supports Apple events

I know, but I was thinking of OS-independent RPC protocols. :-) Pity, you're missing some good stuff... :/

_I_ _am_ using a Mac at home.

But not _everyone_ _else_ and especially not _every_ _company_ is

using _exclusively_ Macs.

Of course. Would it be tactless to mention you're also missing out on
DCOM and WSH? ;)

has <ducks>

(p.s. Seriously, why not just cover everything? Platform(s) support is
just another feature.)

[has]

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

Am 6 Dec 2004 16:00:35 -0800 schrieb has:

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

MacPython also supports Apple events

I know, but I was thinking of OS-independent RPC protocols. :-) Pity, you're missing some good stuff... :/

_I_ _am_ using a Mac at home.

But not _everyone_ _else_ and especially not _every_ _company_ is

using _exclusively_ Macs.

Of course. Would it be tactless to mention you're also missing out on
DCOM and WSH?

<ducks>

has

(p.s. Seriously, why not just cover everything? Platform(s) support is
just another feature.)