File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
The moose likes Web Services and the fly likes How exactly does MTOM shrink the payload? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login

Win a copy of Java Interview Guide this week in the Jobs Discussion forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Web Services
Bookmark "How exactly does MTOM shrink the payload?" Watch "How exactly does MTOM shrink the payload?" New topic

How exactly does MTOM shrink the payload?

Luke Murphy
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 12, 2010
Posts: 300
Ok, So MTOM sends base64 encoded binary data outside the XML document. Great.
But it's also possible to encode base64 binary data inside the XML document.

So does MTOM really shrink the overall payload by that much? And if so how?
William Brogden
Author and all-around good cowpoke

Joined: Mar 22, 2000
Posts: 13037
Well, for one thing, any text inside the XML document will be parsed, at vast expense in parser time and object creation.

The great disadvantage to using the SOAP body for large amounts of text was recognized early - leading to SAAJ and similar kludges.

I clearly remember people screaming on SOAP newsgroups about requests taking many minutes to process - because the XML parser was grinding away at some huge payload that really didn't belong in the SOAP body at all.

Also why RESTful architectures are preferred if you don't absolutely need SOAP WS-*

Luke Murphy
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 12, 2010
Posts: 300
Thanks Bill.

Just reading a bit more into this. According to Martin Kalin in 'Java Web Services Up and Running' base 64 encoding result in Data bloat results in payloads of up to 1 / 3 larger than raw data. Therefore using a binary attachment via SAAJ with no encoding is actually a smaller over all payload than a SOAP message with embedded base 64 encoded data.

The downside with going with raw data is that it means the receiver has to deal with them and covert into something meaningful.
It is also hard to use this approach with a document-style service. There are also inter operability issues.

MTOM is backed by W3C. It is used XOP (XML Optimized Packaging) to optimize the payload. So in terms of efficiency and interoperability it wins.

I agree. Here's the link:
subject: How exactly does MTOM shrink the payload?
jQuery in Action, 3rd edition