W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

Re: The Two Way Web

From: Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:03:34 +0100
Message-ID: <000701bf8ce4$29598cf0$f29b12c2@secret.pythonware.com>
To: "Mark Baker - Ottawa Consumer and Embedded Div." <Mark.A.Baker@Canada.Sun.COM>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <soap@discuss.develop.com>
Mark Baker wrote:
> >In any case, I _am_ discussing practical use of methods beyond GET,
> >PUT, and POST.  In the RPC/DO/ORB case, I'm talking about the method
> >names used in applications (IDLs).
> I understand.  But I would argue that arbitrary RPC methods names have
> no place being methods over HTTP.  It's an entirely different problem.

really?  the strange thing here is that people are using
this already, and it seems to work extremely well.  may-
be they've missed your arguments?

> >GET and PUT make a lot of sense at the object and member field
> >accessor level (for Java folks: anywhere you'd use get*/set* methods)
> >but it doesn't make sense for all the other methods that applications
> >use.  A single POST operation would be _way_ too overloaded for
> >implementing a wide variety of methods.
> I disagree.  GET and PUT are document/message granularity, not
> method/attribute granularity.  I would never use HTTP in that
> manner, since the number of network round trips would be
> prohibitive.

that's fine.  the question here is why you argue that nobody
else should be allowed to use it?

face it: XML-RPC (and the SOAP superset) solve existing problems,
are efficient enough for many real-life purposes, and are already
widely deployed.  I've implemented these protocols for Python,
and the mails I get give a very consistent message:

    1. people love it

    2. it works extremely well in cross-platform and
       cross-language environments

    3. people are smart enough to figure out when
       to use it, and when to avoid it.

(maybe you should give it a try?  you can find the Python version
here: http://www.pythonware.com/products/xmlrpc )

> So, you're left with designing your own protocol if you've really
> got a problem that can't reasonably be broken down to documents.
> Or if you can break it down, use HTTP.  But please, no RPC.

too late.  real people are using this for real applications.

pissing on the parade won't change that.

Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 07:03:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC