• To: ldodds@i... (Leigh Dodds)
• Subject: Re: Evaluating RPC versus REST
• From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:54:07 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l... (xml-dev)
• In-reply-to: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJOEAEHEAA.ldodds@i...> from "Leigh Dodds" at Feb 26, 2002 03:04:47 PM

> Fieldings dissertation presents a number of architectural styles, and 
> evaluates each of them within a defined context: distributed hypermedia.
> However he doesn't cover RPC in this classification (correct me if I'm wrong, 
> I've only read through the whole thing once). RPC is mentioned in a 
> later section [1] though.

Roy covers the "OORPC" style in 3.6.3, "Distributed Objects";

http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/net_arch_styles.htm#sec_3_6_3

> So why not define RPC as an architectural style -- in all likelihood derived 
> from others that Fielding does classify -- so it can be objectively compared 
> to REST?

Anything-goes RPC is basically the null style because it defines no
constraints on component interaction.  I assume that's why it didn't
get its own subsection in section 3.  OORPC at least defines the
constraint that components are objects with identity.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@p...
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

• References:
  • Evaluating RPC versus REST
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: 3: XML Schema - > XML Instance - > XSLT Transformation with MSXML 4 ?
• Next by Date: <OT> MaGIC
• Previous by thread: Evaluating RPC versus REST
• Next by thread: Re: Evaluating RPC versus REST
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread