[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: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:34:09 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3C725F76.D9568DD4@p...>

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]
> Sent: 19 February 2002 14:22
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Traditional RPC
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Obviously I subscribe to my theory.

So you should. It's a reasonable theory.

My theory :), is that protocols will get chosen is because to differing
degrees, a) "anyone" can implement them b) they protect people from
"strategic" lock-ins c) they push software to become commodity items, d)
they decouple interface from implementation (a, b and c fall out of d to
some degree). 

Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPHOkoOaWiFwg2CH4EQKXYwCeO7KdbS26APlESkgJX9NbB0uDQIkAoJZA
NcphmBbpKMgrB3wlq+lqfZsJ
=+NFW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• References:
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SOAP and Firewalls
• Next by Date: Re: SOAP and Firewalls
• Previous by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread