[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 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@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
