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

Re: Traditional RPC

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:00:19 -0800
• References: <PO1UFDKGE90865R2414W41E9ZWC0.3c712868@MChamp> <3C7145DC.512FE97D@a...>

Mike Champion wrote:
>
>...
>
> I'll predict that both win: Traditional RPC really is the easiest
> way for programmers, and will work well enough behind firewalls
> and between established partners and in arenas where user simplicity
> matters more than system reliability (e.g., for Userland's typical
> customer, AFAIK). But now matter how fast the Internet that we know
> today improves latency, reliability, security, etc., it will
> be extended geographically and to smaller
> and more mobile devices,continually opening more niches where the REST
> paradigm shines.
 
Right, that's why I told Dave that it will often make sense to have
both.
 
> The only "REST rules, RPC drools" scenario I can imagine, i.e. that
> would make the WS tool vendors' inital focus on RPC ill-considered,
> is if the non-programmers somehow grok REST big time
> and find it an easy migration path from what they do now to
> the Wonderful World of Web Services.

Over several years as people see REST apps deployed on the public
Internet they may think it makes sense to apply the same principles
in-house, as "corporate networks" became "intranets". There is little
doubt that this will happen to some extent. As Gartner would say: 0.95
probability. What will be the breakdown between REST versus RPC versus
XYZ? Hard to tell.
 
 Paul Prescod

• References:
  • Re: RE: Traditional RPC
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread