- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:22:49 +0100
- To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 2017-01-22 19:00, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: > Hi Anders, > > I found your analysis interesting and useful. Thanx. > I must say though, if you conclude that REST is not suitable for this use > case why not use something entirely different like JSON-RPC? Your proposed > new transport seems like it would be a great candidate. Maybe I want to be different? :-):-) No that was just a joke, JSON-RPC seems to map directly to the POST profile (note that there is a GET profile in my scheme as well). I say "seems" since the JSON-RPC spec is extremely terse and version 2 doesn't actually specify a HTTP binding at all! That I in my own implementations do not want to use JSON-RPC is because it "interferes" which what I consider "sacred", the messages. JSON-RPC: {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "PayMeNow", "params": ["amount": "265.00"], "id": 6} "Anders-RPC": { "@context": "https://standards.org/payments", "@qualifier": "PayMeNow", "amount": "265.00", "id", 6 } JCS (The signature scheme) is incompatible with the JSON-RPC specification as it stands. The same goes for JWS (JOSE). The absence of security solutions makes JSON-RPC less useful for Internet-based transaction systems. There are other things related to my "Message Centric" scheme which I haven't described and that is that if you for example do a postMessage() in a browser there is no return value *which doesn't map at all to REST or JSON-RPC*. Anders > Adrian > > On 22 January 2017 at 18:01, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Maybe of some interest... > > https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/web/REST-in-peace.html <https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/web/REST-in-peace.html> > > Enjoy! > Anders > >
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2017 20:23:26 UTC