[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Traditional RPC

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 19 Feb 2002 11:03:51 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C725F76.D9568DD4@p...>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8C0@HQ5> <3C725F76.D9568DD4@p...>

On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 09:21, Paul Prescod wrote:
> "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> > The popularity wasn't based on the protocol.  
> 
> It's just a theory. 
> 
> 1. My theory is that protocols will get chosen because they work
> properly.

Hey, something I can agree with Paul about!

> 2. Your theory is that they will get chosen because they ship with MSDN
> and other vendor-backed distributions.
> 
> 3. Dave's seems to be that they will get chosen because they are popular
> with end-users and surrounded by hype and excitement.

2 and 3 are useful pluses for protocol success, but I don't think either
inherently reduces the risk of a popular but poorly implemented protocol
creating an enormous mess.  On the bright side, more pain MIGHT mean
more people willing to put the time in to fix that pain.

There's got to be a balance point there somewhere...

> Obviously I subscribe to my theory.

Heh.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • RE: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Streaming Transformations for XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: RE: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread