Re: REST as RPC done right
Alaric Snell wrote: > >... > > > No, in general. FTP works fine without being defined on top of an RPC > > protocol and its used for non-hypertext data. DNS works fine without > > being defined on top of an RPC protocol. I don't see how either protocol > > would be more useful if it were defined on top of an RPC protocol. > > I'd say that HTTP and FTP are all using an implicit RPC protocol called 'send > commands and get responses using CR/LF terminators and varying conventions > about how to encode multi-line things (HTTP uses a blank line as a seperator, > FTP uses that stuff with the '-' characters). I agree. HTTP is not an RPC protocol but it could be viewed as being built on an impicit RPC protocol...an application of RPC. > It would be nice if both of them (and POP and IMAP and ACAP and...) happened > to use a common well-defined RPC protocol. Especially since that would allow > them all to be ported to use UDP, IPX, or whatever in one fell swoop in > future. It would ease implementation of them. I agree here also. It would be nice but it is clearly not a killer issue or these specs would be dead! The application semantics are much more important than the RPC syntax. > I think RPC on top of HTTP is bad, purely because HTTP is an application. RPC > goes beneath it. This is how things should be. I agree once again! I would only use the word "application protocol" rather than "application" as a small nit. Paul Prescod
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format