Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) thatrpc(RFC1831) shou
Thanks for the update. Sorry I didn't give my own reasons for just saying no, but I find RPC very useful in general and, of the options that could be eliminated, RPC and SOAP-based Web Services would rank as much more important to keep than REST, but that's just my opinion. I just prefer having more structure and tighter coupling rather than less. Ciao, Rex At 5:47 PM +0200 6/24/04, bry@i... wrote: > > >> Could you please elaborate on your specific usage of "RPC" here? >what was meant specifically was the group of standards RPC (RFC1831), RPC >binding (RFC 1833) and XDR (RFC1832). although I only referred to >RPC (RFC1831) >in the subject of the message. Sorry for lack of clarity. > > >> and that SOAP-based Webservices are accepted - using SOAP >> > 1.1, and WSDL 1.1? >> > >> > Note that HTTP 1.1 is also accepted, >> >> Do you mean SOAP over HTTP? HTML and HTTP? etc. > >This is a rather wide-reaching vague document, so when it marks HTTP 1.1 as >accepted it refers only to HTTP 1.1 and no attendant technologies. To be >cynical, this is all >at the bureaucrat level it seems to me; a list of usable buzz-words. > >> >> and data integration with xml is >> > recomended, so I suppose REST is slightly higher than SOAP. >> >> What would "higher" mean here? You are referring to a stack? > >when I referred to the stack I was referring to the WS-I basic Web Services >stack, which following the vagueness of the document is accepted. >The higher is in referrence to the valuations they gave Web Services >(accepted, >which if we were to give it a numerical value would be 2 out of 3), HTTP has >the >same valuation, but xml has a valuation that would be equivalent to >3 out of 3. >Thus Rest Web Services, identified as Xml over http would have a >higher ranking >than Soap Web Services, if one wanted to look at it from that rather funny >viewpoint which the document assuredly does not. > > >The reason for my posting on the subject and asking for a quick survey of >responses, was that we were having a meeting on this document, which will be >going into rewrite and I was hoping to get some opinions on a section that >seemed particularly wrong-headed to me, but which my valuation of was based >mainly on instinctual dislike. >Luckily there was enough argumentation on the side of doing things over not to >need arguments outside of the ones I was solid on. >The document itself isn't in english, although the next version should be, so >it >wouldn't make much sense to send a link to it. > >Rex asked for a rationale, the rationale as far as I understand it had to do >with a European initiative for interoperability etc. etc. undertaken a while >back, and the document was an initial response to that initiative, to allow >various agencies, organizations, what have you, to look through the >document and >be able to figure out what standards they should choose products for >in order to >be "interoperable" > >Allow me to say that I had nothing to do with this until a few weeks ago. And >nothing especially concrete to do with it until today. When I had the first >meeting on what heretofore I had only read. -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@s... Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request
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