Re: Some notes on the Request-Response MEP, prompted by asynchronicity

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Miles Sabin wrote:
> Amelia A. Lewis wrote,
>> On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 01:00 PM, Miles Sabin wrote:
>>> But I read your mail as asserting that this would be needed for any
>>> conceivable asynchronous protocol (hence Joe Random), and that's
>>> not true.
>>
>> I am asserting that any given MEP must account for multiple network
>> paradigms, and not implicitly tie the definition to a particular
>> paradigm by failing to expose properties.
>
> This cuts both ways ... exposing protocol-specific properties can also
> implicitly tie the definition to a particular paradigm. And trying to
> generalize across all protocols will have the usual problem of
> generalization: you can use the intersection of all properties, which
> is too small to be useful; or you can use the union of all properties,
> which is too unweildy to be useful; or you can try to find an awkward
> compromise somewhere in the middle which will probably satisfy noone,
> but with a bit of luck might be just about good enough.
>
> I don't think there's any easy answer here ... tho' if you're saying
> that the status quo is too HTTP centric, then I'd agree.

Yup.

I think that it isn't impossible to broaden the set, generalizing, without 
getting completely unwieldy.  I grant that it's a challenge.  I think it 
needs to be addressed.  The example was intended to provide some fodder 
for that process.

Amy!