• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Traditional RPC
• From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:09:40 -0800
• References: <1013974378.948.194.camel@l...>

I've been following this debate from the sidelines and finally thought it
was time to chime in.

The big difference between "Traditional RPC" (whatever that means) and REST
is that there are toolkits for T-RPC for every language and environment
known to man. [1] [2]

REST seems to have found a home in debates on XML-geek mail lists, and
occasionally at conferences and on O'Reilly's websites.

If you want to have a revolution, our software will adapt [3] perfectly to
it, let's get some apps, and let's rock.

Dave

[1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/directory/1568/implementations
[2] http://www.soapware.org/directory/4/implementations
[3] http://radio.userland.com/appDownloads/8.0.4#theFunStuff

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • REST, SQL
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by Date: reminder: call for papers, XTech/O'Reilly Open Source conference
• Previous by thread: REST, SQL
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread