• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Traditional RPC
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:49:10 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8B6@HQ5>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8B6@HQ5>

On Monday 18 February 2002 11:38 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Scalability worries me.  Treating a WAN like a LAN worries me. 
> Getting the scripters to not code too close the process of an
> individual desktop worries me.  On the other hand, reliance on a
> global namespace has its perils too.  The issue today is edge system
> integration; not understanding the philosophy of URI.  That is
> corrupt on the face of it; it conveniently "webs" but the namespace
> as URI is corrosive.

These concerns are all valid too... the thing is that REST vs. RPC vs. 
<whatever> is the least part of it. At the end of the day, a poorly 
designed REST-ish application will still [expletive deleted]... and as my father used 
to say "a poor carpenter blames his tools".

Here's a quick question: using REST and RPC, how would you do file 
upload (which is a good example of generally being BAD)?

• References:
  • RE: RE: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Previous by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread