• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:02:58 -0800
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8B6@HQ5> <3C714C8E.CD3A2F59@a...>

"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.

Could you elucidate? I can't remember ever being a situation where
disconnected namespaces were preferable to unified ones (with decent
namespace management techniques!). The only advantage I can think of is
that disconnected namespace names can be textually shorter.
 
 Paul Prescod

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

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