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

Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:55:22 -0500
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE941@HQ5>

[Bullard, Claude L (Len]
>
> Anyone who thinks we can magically hook up the
> world's businesses and skip the step of
> creating the vocabularies missed Markup 101.

Hear, hear!

> On the other hand, I'm still not sure the
> interface model changes that requirement.
> I can see it working either way.

Here's what I've seen.  With an API, you have to learn the API AND the
semantics of the parameters. When the API is complex, that's a big task and
a lot of inconsistencies can creep in.

Is I would only have to learn the semantics of the parameters and not also
have to learn the API mechanics, that would be a large advantage.  It would
save a lot of time and reduce the number of errors and misunderstandings
(and bugs) to deal with.

> But that is a
> business app.  It is intelligence, not
> command and control in real time.  For desktop
> level C2, one really might want RPC and a
> more tightly coupled system.
>
> What do you think?
>
I find myself lately developing browser-based applications for my own
desktop use, when the app needs a GUI, because I don't have to develop all
the GUI stuff myself one more time, and also because I have the possibility
of putting it on other computers without installing anything.  Even with the
real disadvantages of a browser interface, many times it still works out
best, especially for prototypes.

Another useful approach to desktop apps is to make them fairly modular - or
built with components - and to think of the communications between the
components as something you might change or extend later on.

For example, you might have the components communicate using xml.  That
would be more elaborate and have less performance than needed for a pure
desktop app, but then you could plug in xml-rpc or SOAP or just http between
components with almost no change in the design.  This gives you the
potential to extend your app without having to commit at the beginning to a
particular form of RPC or whatever.

I think this answers your question by coming down on the side of loose
coupling, even if you might end up making use of RPC.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by Date: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: RE: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread