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

Re: DR200: RPC conventions - bullet items

From: MOREAU Jean-Jacques <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:51:30 +0100
Message-ID: <3A13BC32.F0BDF567@crf.canon.fr>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@allaire.com>
CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Glen Daniels wrote:

> I'd actually rather see the [...]
> bullet come back, since I believe both request/response matching and
> explicit error handling are important features of RPC which deserve to be
> called out here.

I agree with Glen here, request/response matching is important. Within BEEP,
this issue is directly addressed/supporterd by the protocol , so there's no need
to worry, the right thing just happens. But we do not have automatic
request/response matching in HTTP, so we either specify how to do it in the XP
spec (a new header is probably be fine), or we rule out being able to fire up
multiple requests in parallel, without having to wait first for the previous
response to arrive, before sending the next request.

Am I missing something here?

> I also didn't notice any other requirement which actually covers uniquely
> specifying an XP "target" in the general case.  We might want to pull bullet
> item 1 out into a separate requirement which states that targets for XP
> messages can be uniquely specified using URI syntax, which is important for
> XP in general, not just RPC.

Sounds good to me.

How would you then rephrase the remnants of DR200 so it still holds together?

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 05:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC