[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks for the update. Sorry I didn't give my own reasons for just
saying no, but I find RPC very useful in general and, of the options
that could be eliminated, RPC and SOAP-based Web Services would rank
as much more important to keep than REST, but that's just my opinion.
I just prefer having more structure and tighter coupling rather than
less.
Ciao,
Rex
At 5:47 PM +0200 6/24/04, bry@itnisk.com wrote:
> >
>> Could you please elaborate on your specific usage of "RPC" here?
>what was meant specifically was the group of standards RPC (RFC1831), RPC
>binding (RFC 1833) and XDR (RFC1832). although I only referred to
>RPC (RFC1831)
>in the subject of the message. Sorry for lack of clarity.
>
>
>> and that SOAP-based Webservices are accepted - using SOAP
>> > 1.1, and WSDL 1.1?
>> >
>> > Note that HTTP 1.1 is also accepted,
>>
>> Do you mean SOAP over HTTP? HTML and HTTP? etc.
>
>This is a rather wide-reaching vague document, so when it marks HTTP 1.1 as
>accepted it refers only to HTTP 1.1 and no attendant technologies. To be
>cynical, this is all
>at the bureaucrat level it seems to me; a list of usable buzz-words.
>
>>
>> and data integration with xml is
>> > recomended, so I suppose REST is slightly higher than SOAP.
>>
>> What would "higher" mean here? You are referring to a stack?
>
>when I referred to the stack I was referring to the WS-I basic Web Services
>stack, which following the vagueness of the document is accepted.
>The higher is in referrence to the valuations they gave Web Services
>(accepted,
>which if we were to give it a numerical value would be 2 out of 3), HTTP has
>the
>same valuation, but xml has a valuation that would be equivalent to
>3 out of 3.
>Thus Rest Web Services, identified as Xml over http would have a
>higher ranking
>than Soap Web Services, if one wanted to look at it from that rather funny
>viewpoint which the document assuredly does not.
>
>
>The reason for my posting on the subject and asking for a quick survey of
>responses, was that we were having a meeting on this document, which will be
>going into rewrite and I was hoping to get some opinions on a section that
>seemed particularly wrong-headed to me, but which my valuation of was based
>mainly on instinctual dislike.
>Luckily there was enough argumentation on the side of doing things over not to
>need arguments outside of the ones I was solid on.
>The document itself isn't in english, although the next version should be, so
>it
>wouldn't make much sense to send a link to it.
>
>Rex asked for a rationale, the rationale as far as I understand it had to do
>with a European initiative for interoperability etc. etc. undertaken a while
>back, and the document was an initial response to that initiative, to allow
>various agencies, organizations, what have you, to look through the
>document and
>be able to figure out what standards they should choose products for
>in order to
>be "interoperable"
>
>Allow me to say that I had nothing to do with this until a few weeks ago. And
>nothing especially concrete to do with it until today. When I had the first
>meeting on what heretofore I had only read.
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
|
