Re: REST as RPC done right
On Thursday 28 February 2002 21:24, Paul Prescod wrote: > I don't understand what middleware has to do with it. I'll ask the > question again: do you know of a protocol that bills itself as RPC where > the core method names are predefined in advance by the protocol? Is FTP > an RPC protocol? If not, why not? > 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). 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 think RPC on top of HTTP is bad, purely because HTTP is an application. RPC goes beneath it. This is how things should be. ABS -- Alaric B. Snell http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/ Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
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