[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
>
> > Fielding quoted:
> >
> "What makes HTTP significantly different from RPC is that the
> requests are directed to resources using a generic interface
> with standard semantics that can be interpreted by
> intermediaries almost as well as by the machines that
> originate services."
>
> That's called redefining something in order to prove that you
> are not it. It's a nice rhetorical trick, and useful with
> people who already believe your definitions, but I don't
> think Fielding escapes all claims that the HTTP protocol is
> itself RPC.
Surely what makes HTTP different from RPC is that HTTP is a
networking protocol, RPC is a moniker which describes a style of
network computing. Another way of saying this is that the HTT
protocol is a linguistic abstraction for enabling and framing the
distribution of hypertext. RPC identifies a pattern or style for
distributed computing but is not itself a language for computing.
Sorry to be a pedant, but RPC and HTTP are as apples to oranges.
The controversial matters seem to be 1) whether this HTTP language
has interesting utility beyond distributed hypertext; if so, how to
evolve the language? 2) whether the RPC style of distributed
computing is limiting our ability to solve problems; if so what
styles are appropriate?
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPHzxVOaWiFwg2CH4EQJezACfQWQcUN6nEYkp9l95IzIexbf4xhMAn3zn
4/fv9l7jUSyomZ9Yfy43H3KG
=43Vx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
