• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST as RPC done right
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:32:23 -0500
• In-reply-to: <03f901c1c166$9264f780$6800000a@b...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E9D01Y1V3285D82YNJD0KJJFTPVK3Y.3c7d0740@MChamp> <03f901c1c166$9264f780$6800000a@b...>

On Friday 01 March 2002 04:18 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> That is, mask the local/remote dichotomy not by trying
> to hide remoteness under a locally-oriented "procedure"
> model (doesn't work well) ... but by hiding local-ness
> under a model that cleanly exposes remoteness.

Yep. It takes a while for people using CORBA/RPC/et al. to realise 
that you can't make things truly transparent. Once you do, you change 
the way you write applications using those tools.

> REST meets that model better than RPC.  The fact
> that they're Turing-equivalent is beside the point;
> nobody programs Turing machine bytecode.  :)

I agree... though REST doesn't stand alone in this... or is just one 
of various flavors of roughly the same programming paradigm.
I'll say again that I think tying REST to HTTP does it a disservice as 
an architecture.

FWIW. Most of this is irrelevant anyway.

• References:
  • Re: REST as RPC done right
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: REST as RPC done right
• Next by Date: Re: REST & types
• Previous by thread: Re: REST as RPC done right
• Next by thread: Re: REST as RPC done right
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread