• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:34:12 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <1014827341.2372.60.camel@l...>

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] 
>
> If you ask whether HTTP is an implementation of RPC, a 
> protocol built on RPC, no.  I'm not talking about hypertext - 
> I'm talking about the foundations on which the HTTP protocol 
> is itself built.  I find those foundations to look 
> suspiciously related to RPC, however loud the denials of their
> fans.  

Sensible engineers build RPC on top of asynchronous unreliable
protocols. So you start with with async/unordered base and layer
sync/ordered on top; ie RPC can be baked as a set of guarantees and
constraints about messages between processes. If similar guarantees
can be identified in HTTP then you've got a case.

Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPHz8cOaWiFwg2CH4EQLMCgCfUnBj055KSS8J85yOZhiSlLUHZTwAoPDN
i1mYU6CifK73W9THHK1dewaP
=QtDr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• References:
  • RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: REST as RPC done right
• Next by Date: request to unsubscribe
• Previous by thread: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread